Betsy's Page

Friday, May 06, 2005

Harry Reid should start thinking before he speaks. He is having to apologize for calling Bush a loser.
"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.

"I think President Bush is doing a bad job," he added to a handful of chuckles.

"He's driving this country into bankruptcy," Reid said, referring to the deficit. "He's got us in this intractable war in Iraq where we now have about 1,600 American soldiers dead and another 15,000 injured."
Now, Reid has called Karl Rove and apologized. I guess that calling the President a loser is not considered polite. Or accurate since that "loser" just defeated Harry Reid's candidate and extended the Republican Party's hold over both houses of Congress in two elections. Who's the real loser, Harry?

Reid seems to have a problem with insultingly dismissing those with whom he disagrees. First he went on Meet the Press and criticized Clarence Thomas.
I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.
Later, when pressed on which decisions were poorly written, he came up with this decision as an example.
Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.

Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.

When researched by James Taranto, it turned out that Thomas's decision was only one paragraph long. Here it is, in full.
I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.

And Scalia was in the majority on this decision. Even the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus chastised Harry Reid.

Obviously, Harry Reid is not the brightest of bulbs. Perhaps, he should just keep his mouth shut.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:05 PM 0 comments

Comments:

Harry Reid should start thinking before he speaks. He is having to apologize for calling Bush a loser.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.

"I think President Bush is doing a bad job," he added to a handful of chuckles.

"He's driving this country into bankruptcy," Reid said, referring to the deficit. "He's got us in this intractable war in Iraq where we now have about 1,600 American soldiers dead and another 15,000 injured."

Now, Reid has called Karl Rove and apologized. I guess that calling the President a loser is not considered polite. Or accurate since that "loser" just defeated Harry Reid's candidate and extended the Republican Party's hold over both houses of Congress in two elections. Who's the real loser, Harry?

Reid seems to have a problem with insultingly dismissing those with whom he disagrees. First he went on Meet the Press and criticized Clarence Thomas.

I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.

Later, when pressed on which decisions were poorly written, he came up with this decision as an example.

Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.

Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.

When researched by James Taranto, it turned out that Thomas's decision was only one paragraph long. Here it is, in full.

I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.

And Scalia was in the majority on this decision. Even the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus chastised Harry Reid.

Obviously, Harry Reid is not the brightest of bulbs. Perhaps, he should just keep his mouth shut.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:05 PM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Friday, May 06, 2005

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Friday, May 06, 2005 Harry Reid should start thinking before he speaks. He is having to apologize for calling Bush a loser. "The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser. "I think President Bush is doing a bad job," he added to a handful of chuckles. "He's driving this country into bankruptcy," Reid said, referring to the deficit. "He's got us in this intractable war in Iraq where we now have about 1,600 American soldiers dead and another 15,000 injured." Now, Reid has called Karl Rove and apologized. I guess that calling the President a loser is not considered polite. Or accurate since that "loser" just defeated Harry Reid's candidate and extended the Republican Party's hold over both houses of Congress in two elections. Who's the real loser, Harry? Reid seems to have a problem with insultingly dismissing those with whom he disagrees. First he went on Meet the Press and criticized Clarence Thomas. I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice. Later, when pressed on which decisions were poorly written, he came up with this decision as an example. Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard. Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good. When researched by James Taranto, it turned out that Thomas's decision was only one paragraph long. Here it is, in full. I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute. And Scalia was in the majority on this decision. Even the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus chastised Harry Reid. Obviously, Harry Reid is not the brightest of bulbs. Perhaps, he should just keep his mouth shut. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:05 PM 0 comments Comments: Harry Reid should start thinking before he speaks. He is having to apologize for calling Bush a loser. "The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser. "I think President Bush is doing a bad job," he added to a handful of chuckles. "He's driving this country into bankruptcy," Reid said, referring to the deficit. "He's got us in this intractable war in Iraq where we now have about 1,600 American soldiers dead and another 15,000 injured." Now, Reid has called Karl Rove and apologized. I guess that calling the President a loser is not considered polite. Or accurate since that "loser" just defeated Harry Reid's candidate and extended the Republican Party's hold over both houses of Congress in two elections. Who's the real loser, Harry? Reid seems to have a problem with insultingly dismissing those with whom he disagrees. First he went on Meet the Press and criticized Clarence Thomas. I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice. Later, when pressed on which decisions were poorly written, he came up with this decision as an example. Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard. Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good. When researched by James Taranto, it turned out that Thomas's decision was only one paragraph long. Here it is, in full. I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute. And Scalia was in the majority on this decision. Even the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus chastised Harry Reid. Obviously, Harry Reid is not the brightest of bulbs. Perhaps, he should just keep his mouth shut. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:05 PM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment