There was no 'solid' reason for this decision making as is the case 'chronically' with Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. These four men make decisions on ideology and economic benefit. Ultimately, this decision ends bussing. More money in the pockets of the taxpayers. This court is highly political in all decisions while the Four ? conservative' judges seek to intimidate the others with malpractice or some stupid thing. That is the only thing I can realize that causes Kennedy to even 'give pause' to this ideology. Bush and Cheney have to be up to some kind of monkey business here. Some kind of power play.
But that said and realizing I could be completely wrong and this might be the passion of Kennedy finally coming to the surface, the decisions of the Robert's Court is grossly flawed.
To begin, there was no discrimination with the decision making of these school districts. The students attending these schools systems have to qualify for certain programs. These programs are considered 'special' and 'adventageous' to the best outcome of a student's scholastic standing. So the 'idea' that these students were chosen based on race is false from the beginning. These students had to 'achieve' this standing of academically attractive, in order to be considered for the placement in these special school opportunities. If any student didn't qualify there would not be placement into these programs. This is simply 'not just' decisions made by race or 'minority standing.' Women, by the way, are considered in similar compromised stature in social consideration as minorities.
Okay, so then what is a 'fair' decision? We have seen something like this in Michigan. Yes? Whereby the University 'assigned' 'weighted decisions' to students to facilitate 'fairness' in admission to university level educations. Part of that 'statistically' has to be race simply because 'that is the way it is' in the USA. There is absolutely no concrete reason for this decision by the Robert's court. The addition of 'race' to this process was no different than the consideration by The University of Michigan.
Additionally, in the year 2005, there were TWO, count them TWO Black PhDs to graduate from the USA university system. That statistic alone is astounding. The statistical disadvantage of a Black minority student in any aspect of life of being TAUGHT by a Black PhD is virtually impossible. At this rate, the sun will nova before minorities have a reason to say they have equality in the USA. These decisions by the Robert's Court is simply bigoted and extremely poorly considered and decided.
Okay? Now. There is a reason to overturn Brown vs. Board of Education. A reason based in fairness. A reason that is appropriate. That reason is when it is SHOWN the majority of the USA have a disadvantage to the minorities in the country. In other words, the decision Brown vs. ... worked so well there is now a disparity in opportunity to the white folks, primarily men. That day will never come at this rate. A 'reasonable' decision to reverse Brown vs... would have to include 'proof' of that disparity in the way of adverse statistics revealing lack of progress of the USA majority in light of the application of the statue WHILE proving there are NO, NONE, NADA other factors at work causing that disparity.
It is outrageous to realize parents simply 'poo-pooed' Brown vs... because they 'thought' it was race alone that caused the adverse decisions for their children. Would they consider flipping a coin any different? That is used in some instances in districts with 'magnet' schools. As I write this there are 'perferred' placement in schools in Wilmington, North Carolina that are literally decided by a 'lottery.' Would parents consider that a better alternative, because, when they go before the Supreme Court of the USA to deny 'equity' to all children 'weighted' by social realities that is exactly what they are doing. The attorney's for the parents offered no statistics that would prove the adversity of this broadly applied law to the American society. The plaintiffs literally complained that being of a certain race was really lousy in the face of adverse decisions made by highly dynamic statistical reasons. Well, gosh, do you think? Do you think reversing decades of discrimination comes overnight? Well, it doesn't. Frequently it is a bitter pill to swallow while realizing in the 'long view' the USA will be a far better country to live.
In the case of 'more money' for 'price fixing' do I have to explain this one? I mean the 'horse hockey' floating around the net about the ? advantages ? of this one is so obviously stupid. Price fixing will literally hold the American consumers hostage to corporations.
This decision REVERSED the intent of 'anti-trust.' Where do you think this is going?
Century-Old Ban Lifted on Minimum Retail Pricing (click here)
WASHINGTON, June 28 — Striking down an antitrust rule nearly a century old, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that it was not automatically unlawful for manufacturers and distributors to agree on minimum retail prices.
The decision will give producers significantly more, though not unlimited, power to dictate retail prices and to restrict the flexibility of discounters....
I don't believe there will be any limits except what the states place on merchandise/services/etc. marketed within their borders. I mean here we go again with States and the right to monitor the well being of their consumers, which should have been happening in the housing market.
This decision leads to cartels and/or cartel-like cultures by corporations both inside the USA and outside of it when marketing to Americans. I can't state enough how towns and cities need to focus on 'local economies' whereby they are accountable in a real way to their consumers while shunning 'corporate' style merchandise.
It's a very difficult 'thing' for Americans to 'find a way' with the pressure of corporations' to undersell 'very good' merchandise of which small worker-owned enterprises produce. It is nearly a 'conscience' decision to Buy American over and above all other products. I think we know the importance of that and are turning more and more on self reliance especially in the face of failed government both domestically and abroad. Domestically we have learned that imports can harm us in the way we eat and can kill our pets. Internationally our jobs left the country and/or were assigned to illegals that found 'ease' in crossing our borders to provide cheap labor while our American ports were assigned as profitable enterprises known to be foreign in origin with history of sympathizing with terrorists.
This is just another nail in the coffin of 'The American Corporation.' We don't want corporate health care anymore and we aren't about to be held hostages to corporate greed as we have with Halliburton and Big Oil. This is just another 'power play' by Bush's affinity for favoring corporations to 'attempt to float' an economy. Americans providing an economy for Americans will rob these indulgent Neocon decisions of their impact.
Along awaited justice for the truly innocent. "Hang 'em High in Texas no longer includes the insane." I'll be darn. There is an aspect to American society that don't know the harm they do. THAT, in and of itself has even farther reaching implications as America awakens to the fact there are those among us that are IGNORED by a healthcare system to treat mental illness. I'll be darn. It's about time the USA has a ruling that is just ! No thanks to the four major incompetents on the court including the 'chief.' Gee, Chiefs whether they come from the Judicial Branch of government or the Executive don't seem to be the quality we are used to in this country !
Supreme Court Blocks Execution of Delusional Killer (click here)
HOUSTON, June 28 — Amplifying its ban against execution of the insane, a closely divided United States Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the death sentence of a delusional Texas murderer who insisted that he was being punished for preaching the Gospel.
In a rebuke to lower courts, the justices ruled 5 to 4 that the defendant, Scott Louis Panetti, had not been shown to have sufficient understanding of why he was to be put to death for gunning down his wife’s parents in 1992.
The court, acting on the last day of the 2006-7 term, declined to lay out a new standard for competency in capital cases. But it found that existing protections had not been afforded.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy provided the swing vote, joined by the court’s liberal wing: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
BREAK TIME. I'll deal with Coulter or whatever her name is in a different breath than the idiots at the 'top spot' of the Judiciary. By the way is Gonzalez still there?
A look at Ann Coulter's 'appearance' on "Hardball with Chris Matthews." I find it nothing short of brilliant he should put her 'on the spot' with Elizabeth Edwards, evidently the show has tighter security than the White House for the lack of leaks that occurred to Ms. Coulter surrounding this 'surprise.' It was completely evident she was not only surprised but befuddled by the interaction. That's not surprising, Ann Coulter is befuddled about most issues in her life, as she finds it far easier to allow 'a party line' to dictate her behaviors and decision making. How convenient.
"...CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Ann Coulter, author of “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” plays HARDBALL. Let‘s play with her!..." By all means, play with Ann and her ludicrous priorities.
The focus of her appearance was to adovcate violence in the 'human theater.' I want to take a look first at the transcript to be accurate in the number of times, Ms. Coulter stated she wanted people, you know human beings to die. You know, Ann is the icon of the women of Bush that call for the Supreme Court to harness the power of the American uterus to produce armies of people to kill others.
Right out of the box, Annie has no intention of seeking a diplomatic solution or mentioning the word peace, but, she honestly states she doesn't know much about the issues of which she speaks:
MATTHEWS: So what do you make of the war, where the president‘s talking—Tony Snow, the president‘s spokesman, is talking a long-term commitment beyond September, people talking about a Korean-style commitment of a half a century. Is that bad PR?
COULTER: I don‘t know. I mean, I‘m not very savvy about PR. What I do know is that it would be a disaster if we pulled out. And maybe we could fight the war a little harder and not keep responding to Amnesty International...
The fighting she is talking about doesn't have referees or bells at the end of each round. She is stating when she uses the words, ...we could fight the war a little harder..., that we need to kill more people. And here she even states, ...I think we need to be less worried about civilian casualties.... Really? So, let's see, the USA under Bush and Cheney embark on an illegal war, lie about the impetus for the war, proceed immediately to no bid contracts that gets Dick of the hook with Halliburton stockholders, but, we should kill more people. Not that the people of Iraq are human beings at all. As Ann goes on to state realizing she just advocated the death of innocent civilians, these people are NOT human beings, they are 'terrorists.' So, therefore, it is easy to assume in the mind of Ann Coulter that every 'preceived innocent civilian' in Iraq is a terrorist or at least with the potential of and therefore should have a reign of bombs and bullets showered on them to eliminate the 'enemy' from within.
MATTHEWS: More troops?
COULTER: I don‘t think we even need more troops. I think we need to be less worried about civilian casualties.
I mean, are the terrorists—are Islamic terrorists a more frightening enemy than the Nazis war machine? I don‘t think so. Fanatics can be stopped. Japanese kamikaze bombers—you can stop them by bombing their society. We killed more people in two nights over Hamburg than we have in the entire course of the Iraq war.
It would seem Ann would have the same directive of Bush and Cheney in that a victory at any cost is a prime directive and that the deaths of people in Iraq is an insignificant loss to 'the cause' of spreading democracy throughout Islam. Does she realize by 'backing' such a hideous concept of promoting democracy in countries with established and benevolent leaders of which are monarchies, she is actually declaring war against most sovereign countries in the Middle East? Probably not. Her, mind speak, is so complete that any reality other than 'the cause' is eliminated in a way that would guarantee death to hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people.
She asked the question, "I mean, are the terrorists—are Islamic terrorists a more frightening enemy than the Nazis war machine?". I would like to answer that. No. The terrorists in Iraq are rather few in number. There are a lot of people in opposition to this war that are actually citizens of Iraq that use whatever means available to stop the USA occupation. They do it with remarkable freedom of movement. They do it in a Civil War with each other. But the real answer I wanted to give to that question is that I find the Islamic terrorists and the Nazis far less scary than the hegemony Ann Coulter advocates.The appearance of Coulter goes on and on in an entertaining way not captured here in words. She was smiling and being herself with Chris, all the while entertaining the 'idea' that killing is like a good 'gum workout' with a dental hygienist: "COULTER: I think I‘ve just said it. You cannot fight a clean, hygienic work." Over and over again she advocated killing of innocent civilians as a means of stopping terrorists. Let me see if I can count that advocacy and then I'll move on to the interaction with Elizabeth Edwards.
I actually lost count. There were minimally thirty six times Ann Coulter advocated killing of ANY people including those that practice religion other than Christianity. If I may? ... I think we either have to get rid of this secular religion of FDR, or we have to get rid of the idea of a hygienic war because that was not a clean, hygienic war, World War Two. We killed a lot of civilians, and we crushed the Nazi war machine. She also states about the Koran, which has gotten American military in plenty of trouble in Gitmo, "And the idea that Nazism, which was tied to a civilized culture, was less of a threat than the Koran, tied to a Stone Age culture, I think is preposterous!.."
This was a precious statement and must reflect a frustration with Condi's shoe shopping when Katrina hit: "No! No. Because you are destroying the society that has produced these monsters. And you win by killing the other side and not allowing your side to be killed. Withdrawal would be the worst thing we could do. We could definitely fight it a little bit harder. I mean, I understand why Rumsfeld wanted to have a small footprint. It is a little bit different since it wasn‘t a country attacking us, it is this ideology that has spread throughout the Middle East. Yes, that makes it a lot trickier. But the small footprint didn‘t really work. Americans are getting fed up. Democracies don‘t like to go to war, so we‘re going to have to wrap it up quickly and destroy the fighting spirit of the fanatics."
Next time, if there is ever a next time, I'll bring my manual counter used in mass production to count the number of American cars that do not emit carbon dioxide as they roll off the assembly line in order to keep up with the verbose Coulter hatred of humanity.
But, the issue with The Edwards is really very distressing and Elizabeth is absolutely within her rights to confront this maniac whom seems to think she can take views about people with immunity to any backlash that matters.
This is how the exchange began:
COULTER: We‘re still paying for the New Deal and Social Security.
MATTHEWS: You know who is on the line? Somebody to respond to what you said about Edwards yesterday morning. Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today. We said she could. Elizabeth Edwards, go on the line. You‘re on the line with Ann Coulter.
ELIZABETH EDWARDS, WIFE OF JOHN EDWARDS: Hello, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Do you want to say something directly to the person who is with me?
EDWARDS: I‘m calling—you know, in the South, we—when someone does something that displeases us, we want to ask them politely to stop doing it.
I would like to ask Ann Coulter to—if she wants to debate on issues, on positions, we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today. But—but it is quite another matter to—for these personal attacks.
That‘s—the things that she has said over the years, not just about John, but about other candidates, is—lowers our—our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it.
So, I—I want to use the opportunity, which I don‘t get much, because Ann and I don‘t hang out with the same people—to ask...
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... have enough money.
EDWARDS: .... her politely to stop the personal attacks.
COULTER: OK. So, I made a joke, let‘s see, six months ago.
And, as you point out, they have been raising money off of it for six months, since then.
MATTHEWS: But this is yesterday morning, what you said about him.
COULTER: I didn‘t say anything about him, actually, either time.
EDWARDS: Ann knows—you know that‘s not true. And, what‘s more, this has been going on for some time.
The definiton of 'time removed' as relevant to the issues of the day purported by Ann Coulter as a means of defense to her persistent personal attacks of The Edwards ends up being three years. It's rather incredible to realize Ann actually admits to personally attacking The Edwards for three years in grossly inappropriate ways. It is also rather astounding that the 'focus' of the justification for these 'personal attacks' is notably for campaign fund raising.
I mean, where does that come from? I am quite confident when The Edwards lost their son it was a profound loss to them and they weren't looking to benefit from any sympathy in a presidential bid.
These attacks, and that is exactly what they are, surmount to demoralizing John Edwards as a loving father and somehow a hopeless candidate relying only on sympathy by the public to win a victory to the Oval Office. It's not only ludicous but also litigable if John ever decides to stop being the gentleman he obviously is.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a potential for a John Edwards run for the White House. He is a wonderful man by every measure of American values and quite qualified to lead this country. He has probably walked more miles to reach out to people in campaigning than any other candidate in the field.
The Edwards are simply wonderful people with high moral standards and love their children dearly. The entire 'idea' that a child's death should be more than it is for the purpose of campaign fund raising is simply ludicrous and I propose that Ann Coulter benefits financially everytime she makes those statements.
I believe Ms. Coulter has some serious personal issues she needs to resolve before she grows up to be a 'real journalist' with something substantial to say. I personally apologize to Elizabeth and John Edwards for a member of this society that simply can't behave when the opportunity to make money in appearances and book sales manifests at every attack of a presidential candidate. There should be a law.
If Elizabeth Edwards did not defend her family and husband and their desire together to bring qualified leadership to the USA, there would be something profoundly wrong. I don't know how much it means to her to hear from someone who wants her to succeed more than she realizes but, I am proud of her and sincerely hope her campaigning with John at her side provides this country with a President that sincerely love the people of this country.
John Edwards grew up in the south where living is hard. It's just that simple. The 'fine line' between Middle Class and poverty is so small in North Carolina, it's scary. John in his advocacy at any time in his life, including his legal practice, sought and fought to balance the scales of injustice for the Middle Class of North Carolina. The State of North Carolina is a draconian state whereby the best of efforts to rise out of poverty results in failure more often than not. Education is the 'best bet' to achieving relief from adversity in North Carolina and there are many grateful to John that he took his profession seriously as well the plight of initially his clients but eventually his constituency.
I have frequently and even today referred to gross social injustice in the State of North Carolina. That is not all that exist there. Many wonderful people within North Carolina, but, the state government has much, much to be desired. There are grossly oppressive laws still 'in play' and not just 'on the books' in that state. It is not John's fault as a political candidate and/or a former State Senator that 'this still goes on.' Northh Carolina for all it's natural beauty has some of the worst state legislators that live in the USA. There has been absolutely no efforts to stop poverty in that state. The governors have invited vast expanses of military institutions to provide an economy to people without really taking the issue of a serious economy to task. They invite housing construction while pandering to the 'wealthy retired' as a means of economy in NC. I mean I should look at the 'retired' per square mile in NC vs the rest of the country to better make this argument. But, I know I am right.
John Edwards is an excellant candidate for president of the USA. His spouse simply dedicated to that purpose for the love of her country inspired by the potential for the future of her children. There is absolutely no reason to personally attack these people. Elizabeth could not be more correct in wanting 'dialogue' regarding the issue statements and John's proposed policies for the USA. I don't know of any other candidate that has a focus on the disparity of 'fairness' the Middle Class faces post devastation of the Bush/Cheney Executive Branch, as John Edwards brings to the debate. There is NO Republican candidate that even mentions concern for the Middle Class yet alone seek to improve their circumstances.
I am seeking to place any one candidate before another in this country. I think it is up to the American electorate to find a Presidential Candidate that truly can lead and bring America back from the clutches of corruption. I believe John Edwards is one of those people. I wish the American electorate the best in seeking their next President. It needs to be a good one.
As far as Ann Coulter. I hope she seeks the professional help she needs. I have never witnessed a woman so focused on death, the dead and killing. Like. Holy smokes. She has no regrets for advocating mass killing of people to insure her political dominance in the elections of the USA? I mean she doesn't actually believe wiping out entire populous is an answer to terrorist networks, does she? It's not. At all. There is something dearly wrong with the views of Ms. Coulter.
