On 8/17/06, Dana wrote:
> call me wonkette :)

Damn Wankers!

> It's pretty impenetrable, but he seems to be saying that her decision in
> this case should be dismissed because she was biased in a completely
> different case and in that case, she manipulated the system to support her
> bias.

Not dismissed, expected.

> This is quite apart from the fact that she is disqualified on the basis of
> being a babe and a Stalinist ;)

He never said or implied being a babe is a disqualification. Stalinist yes.

> I'm tempted to say so what if she flipped a coin or assassinated the chief
> justice, *it's a completely different case*, but I am sure this would not be
> seen as questioning the relevance of the argument, but as a vote in favor of
> manipulating the system when it's convenient.

It says she's activist judge, one who changes laws to fit her beliefs
rather than interpreting the laws that exist.

> Let us pause for a moment to admire the audacity of Rush or any member of
> the Bush administration complaining about an alleged manipulation of the
> system.

So you're defending her action as "fair play to her". True colors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four 
times a year.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly

Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:213502
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5

Reply via email to