Summations Only

My greatly missed chocolate point Siamese cat, Noel Persephone, died a few years ago at the age of 23.If she could have voted, she'd have voted for Death--she was elegant and refined, but a killer.I'm neither elegant nor refined, but we understood each other perfectly.Dogs, dears though they are, lack the necessary rigor: if they could vote, they'd simply vote for dinner.The last thing we need is another party of biscuits and balls.

Then why is persuasion legal but bribery illegal?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Calm down, Omni. You do not know me, my interests or my philosophy. Do not go painting me with that conservative boogie-man brush.You do not like this court's rulings so you hate the court and any defense of it. I don't know how far back you go. If you were conscious at the time maybe the Warren court was more to your liking. I certainly did, but that's another story.[aside]You think this court leans to conservative? In the long history of the court this Roberts Court is a bit left of center. Take a look at the Fuller, White and Taft courts. Not just conservative but practically do-nothing courts as well.[/aside]I am a student of the court. I am a fan of the court. Not one of those fair weather fans whose love/hate runs with the tide. I have a great deal of respect for the uniqueness of the SCOTUS no matter which way the political pendulum happens to be swinging. In most of the rest of the world those with independent courts achieve this by act of parliament. SCOTUS is unique in that it is a co-equal branch not dependent on any other organ of government for its independence.For all of its history, if not in quite all of its decisions, SCOTUS has been the guarantor of the rule of law in this country.What I watch for in the court is its judicial temperament in that I watch if it holds to the rule of law and not to the emotion of the society at the time.Many people here detest the Citizens United opinion, including you, because it did not fit your conception of the way this society should do something. What Justice Kennedy wrote was a clear chain from constitution to opinion without any kinks or detours. Compare to what Justice Stevens wrote which was not a legal chain but an emotional chain addressing the dislike and distrust of corporations, the possible corrupting influence of corporate money and the general public's common sense view that such should not continue.I agree with his assessment of corporations and their corrupting influence in politics. But he steps well outside the rule of law in appealing to public emotion via common sense while ignoring both the explicit wording of the First Amendment and the intent of the founding principles that political speech not be abridged, period.I understand it is not very comforting to a lot of people but we are a nation ruled by law not by emotion.As long as there is a grounding in law and a clear path from there into a majority opinion, whether I personally agree with the opinion or not, the rule of law, which to me is the most important thing that will keep this society free for the long haul, has been served.When I see the emotional response of those who hate an opinion and so hate the court without looking to see if the opinion has any grounding in law I react. If the decision shows a clear trail from constitution to opinion, I will defend the court whether I agree or disagree. If it does not then I will pound my feet, stomp my fists and let the bile flow just as you do now.If Justice Stevens' opinion had prevailed I would howl like a banshee, not because of any love for corporations, but because he based his decision on the emotion of the moment instead of the law of the land.I know. People will not see the reasoning but just the outcome and so will count me among the heathens and the lepers.It is so ordered.

Oh come on, Doc. You're a smart guy. A little thought and you could figure it out.

I dunno. It might be an improvement.

Calm I am and was. Could you tell me what portion of my post painted you with a "conservative boogie-man brush" or was in some way histrionic? Your caution against assumptions would have carried more weight if you had not immediately after leapt heroically to that one and the others about those here who disagree with you.I don't hate this court. It is my high esteem for the SCOTUS as an institution that fuels my dismay at some of the Roberts' court decisions. Nor do I hate any defense of this court--just yours, at the moment, because you have defended it with nothing but bare assertions, and now with a lecture you stooped to deliver.There are eloquent, closely reasoned critiques of this decision (and this court), both popular and scholarly. Your dismissal of those critiques as "emotional" merely patronizes all who disagree with you.You declared the contrast between Stevens' reasoning ("emotional chain") and Kennedy's ("clear...without kinks or detours") but did none of the work required to document your take. I understand--my posts on this topic haven't done that, either. That's a lot of work, and while I've read both opinions, I don't want to do that much work here.Just don't think that you've demonstrated anything other than an outline of your opinion and your disdain for mine.But trust me on one thing: I've read your posts, mostly with pleasure, for seven years. I never took you for a conservative boogie-man before, and I don't in this instance.Have a lovely holiday, AZPaul.

Upon reflection, I have to agree.

Histrionic? I didn't think so at the time. I did not link to the case opinions since they certainly are easily available. I didn't feel a whole lot of work was necessary for the same reason. I suppose a few quotes from each would have been more appropriate. Not disdain, no. I don't do disdain. Usually.You say you have a high esteem for the SCOTUS but are dismayed at some of the Roberts' court decisions. No issue here. And you Omni.

So we come to an off election year ... with people pseudocampaigning for 2016 while watching what happens in the house and senate.Governor Chris Cristie, the almost designated GOP candidate goes down in flames with corruption swirling around him.Anybody watching?

1. Bridgegate lane closure for spite
2. Strong arming for friends development in exchange for Sandy funds for Hoboken ...
3. Former Hunterdon County prosecutor Bennett Barlyn says the reason he was fired by the Christie administration was for pursuing a corruption case against Christie allies.
4. $6 million for Belleville Old Folks Complex --- with Sandy funds but Belleville had minor damage -- more than Hoboken.
5. A $4.8 million apartment complex in unaffected inland suburb New Brunswick -- more than Hoboken.

or Looks like 2016 will be the usual parade of clowns ...... and it looks like the cover-up is going to be what gets him.

Anyone notice this lunatic Congressman threatening a reporter? And yes, he is a Republican.

" I'll break you in half like a boy."YIIIIIKES

and a supporter of CCristie ...One bully likes another eh?

To me that sounds like a weird gay porno line where a priest mounts a dude and yells il brake you in half like a boy LOL