I have an interesting thought exercise for those complaining that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s decision constitutes an act of judicial tyranny because he overruled the will of the majority.
This new atheist monument seems too much about settling scores and not enough about furthering the freedom of (non)religion and the cause of open discourse.
“…Harry Reid has done as much to further the work of the kingdom as any politician that has ever served in national office..”
In the first debate between Romney and Obama, Romney walked out with a historic win. Obama was underprepared and unfocused. But I want to explore another factor that hurt him deeply: he forgot about Romney’s Etch-A-Sketch.
Ever since Mitt Romney declared his intentions to become the Republican nominee for president in 2008, one of the chief criticisms directed at him has been that he isn’t ideologically pure enough, that he isn’t a “true” conservative, or that he’s changed positions on key issues too many times. In other words, he’s weak on Republican principles. But is that necessarily a bad thing?
Whenever a court or a judge strikes down a popular piece of legislation, it’s pretty common to hear political pundits (or the people who parrot their talking points) complain about “activist judges”, a.k.a. “elites who overturn the will of the people”. However, these same people will often turn around the next week and praise similar activities by the judicial branch because they have “upheld the Constitution”. Wise observers of this phenomenon quip that the best definition of “activist judge” is “a judge that deems my legislation of choice to be unconstitutional.”
Now that a couple of states have signed into law their notoriously strident anti-immigration legislation, we’re starting to see the fruits of such labors. And what a heartwarming story it is. Unintended consequences are stacking up, and we’re hearing legislators admit they may have “overlooked” the collateral damage of certain provisions. But didn’t these illegal immigrants welcome the risk in the first place?
I want to thank you for your efforts over the last several years to draw attention to a pressing problem that’s facing our planet: global warming. Your time, your campaigning, your organizing, I think it has been honorable. However, that’s not the purpose for this letter. I’m concerned that you’re the de facto spokesman for scientific community on the matter of global warming.
I ran across some encouraging news today: presidential candidate Mitt Romney and likely presidential candidate Jon Huntsman both accept the science on global warming.
So I’m seeing potential 2012 presidential candidate Jon Huntsman take a lot of heat lately about his particular religious views. You might at first think I meant to say Mitt Romney, and that I meant 2008. Nope. In fact, that’s the ironic thing about it: many of the same people I see now assailing Huntsman for his religion were the same ones crying foul when Romney took heat in 2008 for his religion.