Sara Whitman

The Supreme Court

Filed By Sara Whitman | May 01, 2008 6:10 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, Democrat primaries, election 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Ginsburg, Supreme Court

As we wonder about whether or not Obama's charisma is running out, or if Clinton can in fact win regardless of how much ground she is making up right now, I want to remind everyone of something bigger than Obama or Clinton.

The Supreme Court.

If McCain wins this election? The Supreme Court will be stacked with Roberts and Alito clones and we will lose the court for the rest of my lifetime.

I plan on living a long life, too.

When I think about that, I'm not sure I need to be right anymore, about Senator Clinton. When I think about that, I get really frightened for my children.

John Paul Stevens is 88 years old. Ruth Ginsburg 75 and already a one time cancer survivor. How much longer can they hang on?

The war in Iraq needs to end. The economy needs to be sent for emergency surgery. Health care, public education, jobs- the list goes on and on. We are in such a mess after 8 years of Bush, it's hard to know where to begin.

I honestly don't care about Reverend Wright and what he said. I think Clinton's gas tax relief is a lame attempt to garner votes.

The bitter campaign has to stop. The Obamatrons and the Clintonistas have to give it a rest, and yes, I am including myself in that.

Because in the not so distant future? The next president of the United States will be appointing at least one, if not several, new justices to the supreme court.

We should all be afraid, very afraid, of McCain's probable appointments.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


You're so right. Thanks for that splash of cold water.

Go Stevens!

Seriously, I'm not sure I would have held on that long. After Bush got reelected in 2004, and if I were 84, I'd just say, "Screw it, America. You deserve whomever he picks."

I'm glad he's a better person for that.

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | May 1, 2008 7:24 PM

Sara,

As an Obamaton, I will say that could not agree more with what you say in this post. You and I are backing different candidates in this race. But either one of them would be preferable to the disaster that would be a McCain presidency.

There is far too much at stake to allow McCain to win the presidency. We cannot afford a continuation of the awful policies of the Bush administration.

Let's aim our arrows at the GOP.

He did but so did Ginsburg, Alex. Sandra Day bolted and said enough.

I know, she wasn't that great but she wasn't as horrible as her replacement.

We all have to admit that 88 years old is really pushing our luck.

I completely agree, Sara. I'm glad other folks are going to join my "take down McCain" post train.

I'm all for supporting your Democrat, but we can't afford to let McCain sneak by as we continue to attack each other. The Supreme Court is one of the most important reasons why we can't afford to let him get by unscathed.

SDO left during the whole Katrina mess, right? She left during something, I remember, because she thought Bush was so boggled down at the time that he'd have to nominate a moderate. Little did she know, the phrase "political capital" means nothing to our frat boy in chief.

Oh, and if McCain wins, I'm moving to France. Haha, that's my little joke.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | May 1, 2008 11:40 PM

When we were children we were told that ‘Officer Doolittle is your friend’ and ‘The law is there to protect you’. Later, when we saw cops using attack dogs and busting the heads of civil rights and antiwar demonstrators and judges throwing them, not the cops in jail, we formed a more sensible opinion.

If it turned out that the cops were not our friends, neither were the courts. They are not independent of class, gender and color bias. (Juries are another matter altogether.) The courts are at best fickle. They may or may not recognize the gains we make in campaigns for equality, and it doesn’t matter much who nominates them. Judicial questions are ultimately political questions and despite their claims of judicial independence judges are first and foremost politicians. They’re chosen or nominated because they’re centrists, traditionalists and passionate supporters of the status quo, the system that produces union busting, bigotry, war, environmental disaster, misogyny, immigrant bashing and etc.

Actually, all the major democratic advances in US history, beginning with the Bill of Rights, have been based on combative mass campaigns that threatened to get out of hand if we didn’t get our way. Slavery was not ended by court order; it was won on the bloody battlefields of the Second American Revolution. Female suffrage was won by a determined decade’s long battle which the 19th amendment recognized. The union movements struggle for closed shops, union contracts, decent wages and benefits were not granted by legislation or the courts. They were won on hard fought bitter industrial battlefields by hardened union strikers. The war in Vietnam didn't end with a Supreme Court decision, although they could (and should) have declared it an illegal war and ordered the arrest of LBJ and Nixon as war criminals. It was ended by the fierce insurgency of the Vietnamese combined with the combativeness and enormous social weight of the civilian and GI antiwar movement.

Judges are appointed by Democrats or Republicans. Those rightwing centrist parties are owned lock stock and barrel by the rich, businesses, cultists and bigots and they run for profit, not principle. Unlike street prostitutes, the leaders of the two parties get to appoint their own judges.

One of the worst judges in the Federal Circuit court on GLBT issues is a Clinton appointee who votes against us and for bigots. Senate Democrats worked with Republicans to approve gaybashing Bush nominees for the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and as US Attorney General. They want conservative and centrist judges who’ll protect wealth and privilege, and those people don’t take kindly to laws or cases that award large claims against bigots. The Congressional Democrats led by Barney Frank gutted ENDA and dropped the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill to prevent to these claims from even getting to court and because both would have greatly enhanced our pathetically weak current antidiscrimination laws.

The key to gaining our equality is not to rely on capricious and vacillating political judges but on ourselves and our ability to fight through to the end, whatever the means and no matter the consequences, to get our share of what the world offers.

A.G. Casebeer | May 2, 2008 12:59 AM

Don't quote me, but I recall Stevens being quoted as saying that he planned to serve as long as geriatric medicine permits, or until a liberal is elected. I have also heard it said that he intends to break William O. Douglas' record of 36 years. That's about 4 years away.

Thanks for writing this. I'm operating under the assumption that Ginzburg and Stevens will not serve much longer, that Scalia likes to hunt with Dick Cheney (with the attendant risk of gunshot wounds), that Anthony Kennedy and Scalia are both 70+, and that John Roberts is at constant risk of suffering a seizure at 75 mph on the Beltway. I do not want John McCain nominating Federal judges at any level, let alone the SC, based on the assortment of clowns, charlatans, complete idiots, and total jerks that Bush has put on the Federal bench.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | May 2, 2008 1:28 AM

It is Afternoon in Thailand Alex and the water is fine. I agree Bill that the short version of what you have said is that all human progress comes with dissatisfaction of the status quo.

Sandals better than barefoot, shoes better than sandals, OK gotcha! "Workers of the World Unite" has been tried and failed. Violence has failed.

Sara, thank you for this post. As you know I have said twice in your postings that whomever is not the candidate of our party must be lionised and thanked by the whole of the party for creating the most interesting and groundbreaking candidate and choice our Republic has ever known. As you know I lean toward Hillary, but would be proud to vote for Obama if he is the choice.

And why can't we take one good page from the Reagan Republican party playbook and not speak ill of another Democrat?

This campaign has become too vitrioloc and bitter over the last couple of months. People who strongly backed the person who ultimately is not the nominee will be tempted to stay at home and not support the person who wins the nomination.

Thank you, Sara, for showing why we can't allow ourselves to sit by and watch the election of someone who will continue to push the agenda of President Bush. I am hopeful of an Obama/Clinton ticket, but I would support a Clinton/Obama ticket. At this point, I would support any Democratic ticket, even if it were led by Barney Frank.

Yeah. We're pretty desperate.

Thanks Bill Perdue, glad you are back with your excellent comment. Many of us do know and others should by now realize that no gains have ever been made without a mass movement that demands change. (paragraph 3 *****)

During these days of Holocaust Rememberance listen to what Kurt Hiller said in 1921. "In the final analysis, justice for homosexuals will only be the fruit of your own efforts. The liberation of homosexuals can only be the work of homosexuals themselves."

It seems every election someone brings out the large stick, "the supreme court" to scare us, to beat us back and to keep the people on a reformist path. I don't know yet how to break that path but break it all of us must in order to be free.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | May 2, 2008 12:08 PM

Richard,

I define freedom differently. The Bill of Rights is the only thin line between the population of the United States and the fascists you reference. The Supreme Court is the vehicle by which our freedoms (or lack of them) are interpreted.

Kurt Hiller spent time in concentration camps in the 1930's courtesy of a lack of human rights, and I am surprised that you seem to be phrasing this as an argument against the composition of the Supreme Court.

We have concentration camps again and we must remember that we could be next if important changes are not made.

"The key to gaining our equality is not to rely on capricious and vacillating political judges but on ourselves and our ability to fight through to the end, whatever the means and no matter the consequences, to get our share of what the world offers." Bill Perdue #7. To this quote I am refering the quote by Kurt Hiller.


Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | May 2, 2008 3:33 PM

No Ganshorn, you don’t get it. That’s clear from the clumsy drivel you use to justify your reactionary political views. Stick to your silly psychobabble, you’re on safer ground there.

You say that violence doesn’t work but you haven’t a clue about its actual origins and consequences. You’re one of these dunces who believes that fighting for our rights requires means violence and that when it occurs it’s our fault. Wrong. It’s overwhelmingly caused by your side Ganshorn, by the criminals you so admire - LBJ, Nixon, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Bushes. They have matching war policies and will continue pursuing them after November. You support their genocidal wars for oil and hegemony, but only if the war criminal is a ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’.

The consequences of that violence are acceptable for people like you because it doesn’t affect you. But it does affect millions of victims of US belligerence and GI’s. They’re mostly working people, and they get maimed and murdered on the orders of liberals and conservatives in places like Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, Libya, Lebanon and others. It’s a long list.

Another and happier consequence is that your side keeps losing. Over a million Vietnamese were murdered by your hero, LBJ, the ‘guns and butter progressive’ architect of the ‘Great Society’ and the invasion of Vietnam. Both failed miserably. We weren’t successful trying to get war criminal and liberal Democrat LBJ arrested and tried for his war crimes, but on the whole the antiwar movement and the intransigent Vietnamese insurgency was very successful – we ended the idea US Pacific hegemony, stopped the killing of Vietnamese and saved the lives of GI’s.

We might fail again to impeach and indict the current batch of war criminals - Bush1, Clinton1 and Bush2. That’s because you Democrats absolutely refuse to consider impeachment and convening a War Crimes Tribunal. That’s not surprising given Obama’s plan to attack Pakistan and Clintons plan to use nukes against the Iranians to defend zionist apartheid. But we will not fail to end the oil piracy, to stop the murder of Iraqis and save the lives of GI’s. I promise you that we’ll beat back this latest example of ‘’liberal, progressives’ genocide.

You support Clinton (or Obama) because you’re a Democrat (sic) who supports wars of aggression. I’m a socialist and I oppose these colonialist wars and the candidates who want them because they result in the murder and maiming of working people. And because they profit predator corporations like Halliburton and Texaco-Chevron who are enabled by Democratic (sic) and Republican politicians, members of the worlds second oldest profession, who the corporations buy by the bushel load.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | May 2, 2008 10:02 PM

I think we can (most of us) enjoy a big honking WWF rivalry of primary and come together after that to put an end to the long national nightmare. After a couple of decades of sham conventions, orchestrated races increasingly over nothing substantive, and otherwise generally being lulled into red-white-and-blue jammies for a nice nap instead of a properly annealing smackdown-to-a-nominee, we've forgotten what fun it can be! Imagine, Democrat hopefuls actually campaigning in Hoosierland! Great Ghost of Kefauver! Lawdy, lawdy, whatever will happen next!!

Do I live on another planet? I'm baffled by the comments... First, O'Connor left to take care of her ailing husband and said she would have liked to remain on the Court otherwise--she hardly bolted, show some respect.

Second, how is no one taken aback by Bill Perdue's comment? I'm honestly amazed, I hardly know where to being. Perhaps the Bill of Rights. There was no " combative mass campaign[] that threatened to get out of hand if we didn’t get our way" ... the BoR was introduced to Congress who threw it to the state legislatures to ratify years after the war ended; the sovereign masses had little to do with its passage, only anti-Federalist politicians whom Bill likely deplores (oh the irony).

Next, slavery was certainly not ended by the Court directly, but it's (reprehensible) decision in Dred Scott was a major reason war broke out, so in no small way, they did help end slavery. More recently, the Court was utterly powerless to declare the Vietnam war illegal and arrest our Presidents. To suggest otherwise makes me question his understanding of both history and our country's government, but I would love some elaboration if Bill would offer. A lack of understanding is further evident by suggesting that leaders of the two parties appoint judges. The President nominates candidates and the Senate votes one way or the other. The President often defers to the judgement of Senators of the state nominations are drawn from ... Senators elected by the people, even civic-minded prostitutes.

Perhaps Bills most egregious departure from reality is that he utterly ignores the Warren and Burger courts. Has he never heard of Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation), Mapp v. Ohio (illegal search and seizure), Miranda v. Arizona (think Miranda Rights), Tinker v. Des Moines (free speech/Vietnam protest), Griswald v. Connecticut (right to privacy), Roe v. Wade (abortion), US v. Nixon (checks and balances) and finally, Lawrence v. Texas? Has no one else?

To ignore the Supreme Court's role in defending, articulating, and securing rights is ignorance beyond words. The Court has not always made the "right" decision, but they've made plenty of good ones that have changed this country for the better.

Finally, his diatribe regarding ENDA and individual Federal judges has nothing to do with the Supreme Court or the judicial system in general. Despite his claims, the key to gaining equality has often been through the courts.

Why is everyone okay with his comment? You cannot on one hand fear the Supreme Court's power under conservative control and let stand someone who says it is useless.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | May 3, 2008 6:59 AM

Oh Bill Perdue, you make me so hot when you get mad!

I had my first union card at age sixteen.

I worked on a railroad track crew at eighteen.

During the Chicago 68 convention there was a lot of violence on both sides. I restate violence and politics do not blend.

LBJ was not a perfect president or man, but he basically gave the south to the Republican party by assuring persons of color the right to vote. The war was not fully his doing. Why don't we blame Charles De Gaulle and the Socialist Chinese a bit.

I have never admired a Bush or Ladybird Johnson's "shrubs."

On this blog I reccommended to all that a reading of "The Isreal Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" would be time well spent when we had a guest posting about the joys of Gay freedom in Isreal that I could not stomach.

I would commend you further to relax with the U tube of "History of Oil" which is both true and amusing. And Bill, you need some humor in your life.

Bill, I don't know how to tell you. Clinton WAS impeached, just not removed from office for lack of votes. I would be in the camp that would love to haul the current Criminal in Chief to public review, but I have said before he will grant himself, Cheny and the rest immunity on the way out of the White House.

Bill, I am not a Socialist nor am I a member of any type of organized political party. I'm a Democrat, and among all the awful things one could be, if this is my worst vice I will happily shoulder it.

I hope you see that we are similar in opinions and attitudes on numerous things and your considered opinion is at least as good as mine,

Except: If your idea of a solution to our present serious problems in America is to give away our precious voting franchise, to the Socialist party you are wrong on the face of the arguement. You ask that we sink ourselves with all flags flying--and you think I will accept it?

Reach for your favorite medication please.

ignoring doesn't mean agreeing, Dave.

Marla R. Stevens | May 3, 2008 9:45 AM

The electoral college and traditional voting patterns, though, make some of our general election votes virtually moot -- Not mine in changeable Iowa now but, when I was in Indiana, a protest vote in the presidential race in November wasn't going to affect the make-up of the Supremes. So, if Dave's from one of the historically bright red states, I'll cut him some slack.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | May 3, 2008 4:53 PM

Although misrepresentation like that employed by anonymous Dave is common enough in court and predictable when candidates of the Democratic (sic) and Republican parties open their mouths, it's not helpful in discussions about how to win our fight for equality.

Anonymous Dave says that social unrest in the post-Revolutionary period didn’t exist and had no impact on the debate over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He's just not up to speed on history. If the Bill of Rights hadn’t passed it would have sparked a political crisis leading to disunity and counter revolution. Passage of the Bill of Rights wasn’t some simple minded poli-sci ‘How a Bill Becomes a Law” absurdity, it was the paramount question of codifying what the Revolution was all about. To say otherwise is idiocy.

Next, anonymous Dave applies his legal expertise to the Second American Revolution and is wrong again. The crisis began when slaveholders tried to extend slavery. A combative mass movement, we call it the Union Army and Navy, pushed their faces into the dirt and only afterwards did Congress and the courts recognize some of the war aims of the bluecoat army, whose ranks were swelled by African American volunteers. The Battle Hymn of the Republic makes little mention of the Supreme Court. But it does talk about John Brown, a ‘terrorist’ who attacked the e Federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Va.

Shortly after the Civil War, in a typically sleazy compromise between Democrats and Republicans, they allowed slaveholders to reinstitute limited slavery (by imposing decades long prison sentences for breaches of the Jim Crow laws) and a whole host of racist and segregationist laws and court rulings that created an apartheid-like system called Jim Crow.

Anonymous Dave’s heroic antiracist courts didn’t get around to meaningfully addressing Jim Crow for 80 long years, and then only under unremitting international pressure because the US was seen, and rightly so, as a cesspool of racism. That didn’t set well with the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa and the Soviets made the most of it. Brown v. Board of Education had more to do with international embarrassment by Eisenhower and Dulles than some mythical sea change in the courts. And even that limited effort was 80 years too late and way too little.

The courts could stop wars and prosecute war crimes if the Democrats impeached war criminals and convened a War Crimes Tribunal. But I’ll grant you that’s unlikely because Democrats were the primary war party during the genocide against the Vietnamese and to date have supported Bush every time he asks for funds or troops to commit genocide against the Iraqis. They’re guaranteed to continue Bush’s genocide if they win in the fall. Nobody seriously questions that.

Finally, I don’t claim that the courts and Congress won’t bend, but I do say they have to be forced to. Anonymous Dave just can’t seem to connect the dots between mass action for equality or political and economic rights and the few times they do bend. What I did say was “The key to gaining our equality is not to rely on capricious and vacillating political judges but on ourselves and our ability to fight through to the end, whatever the means and no matter the consequences, to get our share of what the world offers.“ Change comes via mass action campaigns and what Congress and the courts do is to occasionally footnote that with a law or a ruling. But it’s nothing but a footnote to the real story.

I suppose it tempting for legal types to believe that they’re the schwerpunkt of political change but that’s just pompous silliness. It’s a much a myth as believing that we live in a representative democracy. In the end most lawyers and judges are just talking machines who, like political prostitutes, will say whatever they’re paid to say.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | May 4, 2008 1:30 AM

Oh gosh Bill, you didn't mention me once!

Now another book for you:

"Ain't you Glad you joined the Republican Party?"

You will find that BOTH parties did a hula dance around issues that slowly altered the dynamics of each from the inception of the Republican Party.

The Democratic party had been the party of slaveowners Bill and you don't have to be a grad of Ohio State class of 66 to have learned that by now. I would have been a Republican in 1860 Bill.

Further, "anonoymous Dave," you don't have any problem with your anonymous admirer who congratulates you for posting after you have posted! Is this another of your personalities Bill? And how many distict personalities of yourself are roaming around? How many trips to the internet cafe and double shots of espresso can you endure?

And would you like a perogi with your schwerpunkt?

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | May 4, 2008 12:58 PM

Sara, my guess is that if you want to remain a Democrat you eventually learn to ignore lots of disturbing things. You have to hold your nose to vote for Obama and Clinton because they oppose immediate withdrawal and will continue the genocide against the Iraqis, whose children are just as precious as ours. They're against socialized medicine, for busting unions and cutting welfare but oppose regulating predatory corporations. Your party gave us DADT and DOMA but gutted ENDA and tossed the Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill in the garbage.

Democratic candidates differ from their Republican cousins very little in program. The difference is Republicans are more open about their reactionary politics. (Their sexcapades are a different matter.) Republican voters still have to hold their noses but they keep their eyes open when they vote for war, bigotry and economic anarchy because they’re for all that.

Some Democrats are serious about opposing the war and bigotry. After the election many of them will be joining the various movements to address the problems created by their support for the Democratic Party. They can join with some of the millions of voters who ignore the elections entirely because they realize that they’re just a turf war between rival gangs.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | May 4, 2008 1:56 PM

"Democracy is a very bad form of government, but all the others are so much worse."

Winston Churchill

And thank you Bill for only gifting us with a three paragraph post--this time. Oops, my clumsey drivel.

Would you care for a side order of pustch with your Schwerpunkt?

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | May 4, 2008 1:59 PM

And say hi to Richard for me! I had an imaginary friend when growing up too!

FYI

John McCain is speaking at Wake Forest University in NC on Tuesday, May 6, and his topic is expected to focus on the issue which Sara is raising; specifically, his criteria and philosphy for appointing federal judges to the bench. Former Solicitor General of the United States Ted Olson will be attending the event with McCain.

Richard Nelson | May 4, 2008 10:38 PM

Sorry Robert I am not imaginary friend of Bill Perdue but a Socialist and supporter of the Workers World Party. I live in Hartford Ct, am 60 years old and have been in the movement since 1963 when my church group went to the march on Washington. I have no use what-so-ever for the twin parties nor do I for any of your nonsense and find that your tirades against Bill to be childish and by and large not worth commenting on.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | May 5, 2008 2:08 AM

Thank you Mr. Nelson of Hartford Ct. But upon any examination of the printed word you could never describe my jousts as tirades.

I simply find Bill's wanderings, off point of a posting, to be tiresome and incomprehensible.

I congratulate you on your firmly held beliefs from the age of 15. How remarkable that you apparently have apparently not rethought them since, but I do know both Republicans and Democrats who have not thought about their parties either, since puberty.

The point of Sara's post was The Supreme Court. Take a look at Bill on post 23. Nothing about The Supreme Court. Look at post #15. Nothing about the Supreme Court. Your posting #12 Nothing about the Supreme Court. etc. Got it?

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | May 5, 2008 11:55 PM

Richard Nelson, you spoke about breaking with reformism. It’s happening. This election cycle is marked by extraordinary intensity. Scattered opposition to the war has turned to widespread hatred for the war. Unease about the economy is turning into mounting anger over decades of a declining standard of living, awful heath care, a looming financial crisis and tax cuts for the predatory rich. For the first time in decades we’re seeing a deep polarization in parties, between parties, between unions (the 50/50 split from the AFL-CIO by Change to Win) and among the population as a whole. To quote the real King, Jerry Lee Lewis, ‘There’s a Whole Lotta Shaking Goin On.”

A radicalization is well underway. I imagine you’ve already seen the news about the May Day ILWU walkout that shut down all 29 US west coast ports from San Diego to Seattle. It wasn’t over wages and working conditions but solely to protest the war. In many places immigrant truck drivers and Teamsters got in on the act. This years GLSEN/GSA Day of Silence was a qualitative leap over previous efforts and unfolded on thousands of high school campuses. It’s just the tip of the iceberg in terms of a developing and highly politicized youth radicalization which, unlike previous radicalizations, is first and foremost led by GLBT youth on their issues. What a change! The days when we were just foot soldiers in everyone else’s battles or a historical footnote are over.

After decades of the two party bait and switch game the chickens are coming home to roost. But some haven’t yet figured that out. With what Martha Stewart would call a ‘gracious plenty’ of effrontery the arrogant fools who ‘lead’ the Democratic (sic) Party sent in Barney Frank, Clinton’s campaign manager, to do a hatchet job on ENDA and then tossed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill in the garbage. The emergence of UnitedENDA, however it turns out, was a huge step forward for the independence and integrity of our movement. We showed a little backbone, and it’s about time.

I’m sorry you had to get involved in Ganshorn’s little games. When he grows up he wants to be the bête noir of anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. You can tell someone’s lost it when they quote Churchill on democracy. Churchill was the father of the Black and Tans, the English murder squads (literally so, they were formed from the scum of English prisons) that butchered their way through Ireland trying to stamp out Sinn Féin. He was the instigator of the policy of unlimited terror bombing of German civilians during WWII. And who can forget the master stroke that demonstrated Churchill’s genius as a military strategist – Gallipoli. At least Ganshorn’s consistent. His heroes are the Clintons, Churchill, Hubert Humphrey and LBJ.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | May 6, 2008 5:42 AM

There there Bill, remember your blood pressure. After all, you and Richard have to get together naked in the woods, to discuss the joys of German Utopian Socialism.

All those personalities you are carrying about might just give you a seizure and it would be a pity for you to miss one last outing on the way to your personal ashcan of history.

I quoted Churchill stating that Democracy is a bad form of government and you failed to thank me?

Again Bill, there was no comment about the Supreme Court in your medically induced rant.