by Donald Miller
New Paltz Mayor Jason West following a July 12 decison by prosecutors to drop charges against him for marrying 24 same-sex couples.
NEW PALTZ, N.Y. — Following months of heated debate between forces on the right and left, a judge has finally dropped all charges against New Paltz Mayor Jason West who could have faced up to 24 years in jail for marrying same-sex couples on the steps of town hall.
West was among the first public officials in the nation to marry same-sex couples, following San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in February 2004.
West was charged with 24 misdemeanor counts of violating the state’s domestic relations law. The district attorney for Ulster County said he dropped the charges because he believed a trial would be unnecessary and divisive.
West called the decision a “complete vindication” and said the district attorney had been “wasting taxpayer money for 18 months.”
West has maintained he was upholding the gay couples’ constitutional rights to equal protection — and thus his oath of office — by allowing the weddings.
Although New York’s Gov. George Pataki and the state’s Attorney General Eliot Spitzer have said same-sex ceremonies violate state law, multiple cases have been filed on behalf of gay couples who hope to change the way that law is interpreted.
Criminal charges against the two Unitarian ministers who wed gay couples in New Paltz after West was forced to stop the ceremonies have also been dropped.
Regardless of the decision, the anti-gay, Florida-based Liberty Counsel group is still considering what other legal actions can be taken against West.
“We have not ruled out going after Mayor Jason West to remove him from office,” said Liberty Counsel’s Matthew Staver. “He has violated the law; he has expended taxpayer monies in doing so and as an elected pubic official he ought to be removed from office. And certainly, we are still considering, seriously, pursuing actions against the mayor.”
According to Staver the misdemeanor charges against West could be resurrected at any time.
This mayor tries to do something good and yet they slam him, while the mayor in Washington State is hanging on to his place and yet the republicans say nothing about him.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Libertarianism 101
by Sharon DuBois
Generally speaking, conservatives believe that citizens should have economic freedom, but that their personal behavior should be controlled – for the common good – by the government.
And, generally speaking, liberals believe that citizens should have personal freedom, but that their economic decisions should be controlled – for the common good – by the government.
Authoritarians, or Statists, believe that – for the common good – the government should control most of what the citizens do.
Libertarians believe that citizens should have all the freedoms, right up to the point where they start taking those same rights away from others. Then, and only then, should the government step in. As David Boaz says in his book Libertarianism, A Primer, “Conservatives want to be your daddy, telling you what to do and what not to do. Liberals want to be your mommy, feeding you, tucking you in, and wiping your nose. Libertarians want to treat you as an adult.”
The Constitution is very much a Libertarian document (or at least it was until the Sixteenth Amendment, allowing a tax on income, was passed), and for the first 120 or so years of its existence, the United States was a Libertarian nation. The Libertarian freedoms, of course, did not at that time extend to slaves or women. This was fixed by the Thirteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments.
The Libertarian Party favors a much stricter interpretation of the Constitution than we have now, particularly the Tenth Amendment, which clearly says that, if the Constitution does not specifically grant a power to the federal government, that power is reserved to the state governments or to the people. Period.
The Libertarian Party is dedicated to a free-market economy, civil liberties, personal freedoms and personal responsibilities, and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 by people who believed that the federal government has become so bloated, unresponsive, and unmanageable that it no longer serves the needs of the people. They also believed that the citizens of the United States can do something about a bloated, unresponsive, and unmanageable government. The Libertarian Party is a grassroots movement, and is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. There are members in every state in the Union. In the 2004 presidential election, the Libertarian candidate for president, Michael Badnarik, appeared on the ballot in 48 states – more than any other third-party candidate.
This intreages me. I think I will have to talk with the people and find out more about them. I may end up shifting my alliance to these folks instead of the Democrats.
Generally speaking, conservatives believe that citizens should have economic freedom, but that their personal behavior should be controlled – for the common good – by the government.
And, generally speaking, liberals believe that citizens should have personal freedom, but that their economic decisions should be controlled – for the common good – by the government.
Authoritarians, or Statists, believe that – for the common good – the government should control most of what the citizens do.
Libertarians believe that citizens should have all the freedoms, right up to the point where they start taking those same rights away from others. Then, and only then, should the government step in. As David Boaz says in his book Libertarianism, A Primer, “Conservatives want to be your daddy, telling you what to do and what not to do. Liberals want to be your mommy, feeding you, tucking you in, and wiping your nose. Libertarians want to treat you as an adult.”
The Constitution is very much a Libertarian document (or at least it was until the Sixteenth Amendment, allowing a tax on income, was passed), and for the first 120 or so years of its existence, the United States was a Libertarian nation. The Libertarian freedoms, of course, did not at that time extend to slaves or women. This was fixed by the Thirteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments.
The Libertarian Party favors a much stricter interpretation of the Constitution than we have now, particularly the Tenth Amendment, which clearly says that, if the Constitution does not specifically grant a power to the federal government, that power is reserved to the state governments or to the people. Period.
The Libertarian Party is dedicated to a free-market economy, civil liberties, personal freedoms and personal responsibilities, and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 by people who believed that the federal government has become so bloated, unresponsive, and unmanageable that it no longer serves the needs of the people. They also believed that the citizens of the United States can do something about a bloated, unresponsive, and unmanageable government. The Libertarian Party is a grassroots movement, and is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. There are members in every state in the Union. In the 2004 presidential election, the Libertarian candidate for president, Michael Badnarik, appeared on the ballot in 48 states – more than any other third-party candidate.
This intreages me. I think I will have to talk with the people and find out more about them. I may end up shifting my alliance to these folks instead of the Democrats.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Dear Senator,
As your constituent, I am urging you to oppose John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court.
If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...."
Appointment to the Supreme Court allows unparalleled power and opportunity to shape national law and policy for generations. An anti-choice judge, if elevated to the Supreme Court, could tip the balance in many cases dealing with reproductive rights and other personal freedoms.
Roberts, who has demonstrated hostility to the right to choose, will very likely be such a judge. The American public deserves a nominee that can be counted on to uphold constitutional rights.
Granted I know you are pro-life, but if we go back in history prior to the change in law in the 70's; we will have young women dying in the alleys and back office's of butchers who say they can help young women with abortions. If you take away the protections that women are in control of their own bodies then what happens? Do you men take over again and say what we as women can and can't do?
This isn't allowable nor should it be tollerated in our "civilization".
Sincerely,
If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...."
Appointment to the Supreme Court allows unparalleled power and opportunity to shape national law and policy for generations. An anti-choice judge, if elevated to the Supreme Court, could tip the balance in many cases dealing with reproductive rights and other personal freedoms.
Roberts, who has demonstrated hostility to the right to choose, will very likely be such a judge. The American public deserves a nominee that can be counted on to uphold constitutional rights.
Granted I know you are pro-life, but if we go back in history prior to the change in law in the 70's; we will have young women dying in the alleys and back office's of butchers who say they can help young women with abortions. If you take away the protections that women are in control of their own bodies then what happens? Do you men take over again and say what we as women can and can't do?
This isn't allowable nor should it be tollerated in our "civilization".
Sincerely,
Thursday, July 21, 2005
By Ted Rall Mon Jul 18, 8:05 PM ET
NEW YORK--
"Karl Rove is loyal to President Bush " a correspondent wrote as Treasongate broke. "Isn't that a form of patriotism?" Not in a representative democracy, I replied. Only in a dictatorship is fealty to the Leader equal to loyalty to the nation. We're Bush's boss. He works for us. Unless that changed on 9/11 (or 12/20/00). Rove had no right to give away state secrets, even to protect Bush.
Newly loquacious Time reporter Matt Cooper has deflated half a dozen Rove-defending talking points since we last visited. Republicans, for instance, have argued that Rove had merely confirmed what Cooper already knew: that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. That claim evaporated in Cooper's piece in the magazine's July 25 issue: "This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."
"I've already said too much," Cooper quotes Rove as he ended their 2003 conversation.
Rove may avoid prosecution under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, says John Dean, counsel at the Nixon White House. "There is, however, evidence suggesting that other laws were violated," he says, alluding to Title 18, Section 641 of the U.S. Code. The "leak of sensitive [government] information" for personal purposes--say, outting the CIA wife of your boss' enemy--is "a very serious crime," according to the judge presiding over a similar recent case. If convicted under the anti-leak statute, Rove would face ten years in a federal prison.
Even if Rove originally learned about Plame's status from jailed New York Times journalist Judith Miller, Dean continues, "it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate)." Conspiracy will get you five years at Hotel Graybar.
Rove's betrayal of a CIA WMD expert--while the U.S. was using WMDs as a reason to invade
Iraq is virtually indistinguishable from
Robert Hanssen selling out of American spies. Both allowed America's enemies to learn the identities of covert operatives. Both are traitors. Both are eligible for the death penalty.
And he's not the only high-ranking Bush Administration traitor.
In last week's column I speculated that Treasongate would almost certainly implicate
Dick Cheney. Now, according to Time, Cheney chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby is being probed as a second source of leaks to reporters about Plame.
We already know that Rove is a traitor. So, probably, is Cheney. Since George W. Bush has protected traitors for at least two years; he is therefore an accomplice to the Rove-Libby cell. We are long past the point where, during the summer of 1974, GOP senators led by Barry Goldwater told Richard Nixon that he had to resign. So why aren't Turd Blossom and his compadres out of office and awaiting trial?
Democrats are out of power. And, sadly, Republicans have become so obsessed with personal loyalty that they've forgotten that their first duty is to country, not party or friend. Unless they wake up soon and dump Bush, Republicans could be permanently discredited.
Bush sets the mafia-like tone: "I'm the kind of person, when a friend gets attacked, I don't like it." His lieutenants blur treason with hardball politics--"[Democrats] just aren't coming forward with any policy positions that would change the country, so they want to pick up whatever the target of the week is and make the most out of that," says GOP House Whip Roy Blunt--and blame the victim--Rove, absurdly argues Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, was innocently trying to expose Wilson's "lies."
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Bush's credibility at 41 percent, down from 50 in January. Given events past and present, that's still a lot higher than it ought to be.
We don't need a law to tell us that unmasking a CIA agent, particularly during wartime, is treasonous. Every patriotic American--liberal, conservative, or otherwise--knows that.
And knowing all this now I am thinking and rethinking my political ties to the two party system. I am thinking there has to be something better then this.
NEW YORK--
"Karl Rove is loyal to President Bush " a correspondent wrote as Treasongate broke. "Isn't that a form of patriotism?" Not in a representative democracy, I replied. Only in a dictatorship is fealty to the Leader equal to loyalty to the nation. We're Bush's boss. He works for us. Unless that changed on 9/11 (or 12/20/00). Rove had no right to give away state secrets, even to protect Bush.
Newly loquacious Time reporter Matt Cooper has deflated half a dozen Rove-defending talking points since we last visited. Republicans, for instance, have argued that Rove had merely confirmed what Cooper already knew: that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. That claim evaporated in Cooper's piece in the magazine's July 25 issue: "This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."
"I've already said too much," Cooper quotes Rove as he ended their 2003 conversation.
Rove may avoid prosecution under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, says John Dean, counsel at the Nixon White House. "There is, however, evidence suggesting that other laws were violated," he says, alluding to Title 18, Section 641 of the U.S. Code. The "leak of sensitive [government] information" for personal purposes--say, outting the CIA wife of your boss' enemy--is "a very serious crime," according to the judge presiding over a similar recent case. If convicted under the anti-leak statute, Rove would face ten years in a federal prison.
Even if Rove originally learned about Plame's status from jailed New York Times journalist Judith Miller, Dean continues, "it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate)." Conspiracy will get you five years at Hotel Graybar.
Rove's betrayal of a CIA WMD expert--while the U.S. was using WMDs as a reason to invade
Iraq is virtually indistinguishable from
Robert Hanssen selling out of American spies. Both allowed America's enemies to learn the identities of covert operatives. Both are traitors. Both are eligible for the death penalty.
And he's not the only high-ranking Bush Administration traitor.
In last week's column I speculated that Treasongate would almost certainly implicate
Dick Cheney. Now, according to Time, Cheney chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby is being probed as a second source of leaks to reporters about Plame.
We already know that Rove is a traitor. So, probably, is Cheney. Since George W. Bush has protected traitors for at least two years; he is therefore an accomplice to the Rove-Libby cell. We are long past the point where, during the summer of 1974, GOP senators led by Barry Goldwater told Richard Nixon that he had to resign. So why aren't Turd Blossom and his compadres out of office and awaiting trial?
Democrats are out of power. And, sadly, Republicans have become so obsessed with personal loyalty that they've forgotten that their first duty is to country, not party or friend. Unless they wake up soon and dump Bush, Republicans could be permanently discredited.
Bush sets the mafia-like tone: "I'm the kind of person, when a friend gets attacked, I don't like it." His lieutenants blur treason with hardball politics--"[Democrats] just aren't coming forward with any policy positions that would change the country, so they want to pick up whatever the target of the week is and make the most out of that," says GOP House Whip Roy Blunt--and blame the victim--Rove, absurdly argues Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, was innocently trying to expose Wilson's "lies."
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Bush's credibility at 41 percent, down from 50 in January. Given events past and present, that's still a lot higher than it ought to be.
We don't need a law to tell us that unmasking a CIA agent, particularly during wartime, is treasonous. Every patriotic American--liberal, conservative, or otherwise--knows that.
And knowing all this now I am thinking and rethinking my political ties to the two party system. I am thinking there has to be something better then this.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Message sent to the following recipients:
Senator Brownback
Senator Roberts
Message text follows:
Wichita, KS 67211
July 20, 2005
[recipient address was inserted here] [recipient name was inserted here],
As a constituent of yours and a supporter of women's rights, I am writing to ask you to oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts.
Roberts has proved his inability to separate political ideology from the responsibility of fairly interpreting the law. The lives of all women and girls in the U.S. are at stake in your decision. Please vote NO on Roberts' confirmation.
Taking the place of O'Connor, who was the swing vote on these issues, Roberts would be the deciding vote on issues like abortion, birth control, affirmative action, workers' rights, environmental protections, voting rights, disability rights and Title IX—all of which he actively opposes.
For girls and women, the impact of the Court's decisions will affect their safety, livelihood, family health and in many cases their very future. Women and girls are affected by a whole host of issues on which the Supreme Court hears cases: educational equality, affirmative action, discrimination and civil rights, workplace protections and benefits, health care issues, pensions and retirement security, social security and environmental safety.
In addition, the civil and Constitutional rights of a majority of the people of this nation will be in question, whether the issues involve race, color, religion, age, gender, disability or sexual identity. The next Supreme Court justice must have a track record of giving more than lip service to these important protections.
And finally, please consider how important it is to protect the lives and futures of the girls and women who rely on the guarantees and protections of Roe v. Wade. Any potential jurist for the highest court in the land should respect the importance of this landmark ruling that accords women the final say in determining their reproductive future. Roberts clearly does not and must be opposed.
I look forward to hearing from you on this matter and will keep in touch with your office as the time for a vote nears.
Sincerely,
ME
This is the one I sent with the National Orginazation for Women.
Senator Roberts
Message text follows:
Wichita, KS 67211
July 20, 2005
[recipient address was inserted here] [recipient name was inserted here],
As a constituent of yours and a supporter of women's rights, I am writing to ask you to oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts.
Roberts has proved his inability to separate political ideology from the responsibility of fairly interpreting the law. The lives of all women and girls in the U.S. are at stake in your decision. Please vote NO on Roberts' confirmation.
Taking the place of O'Connor, who was the swing vote on these issues, Roberts would be the deciding vote on issues like abortion, birth control, affirmative action, workers' rights, environmental protections, voting rights, disability rights and Title IX—all of which he actively opposes.
For girls and women, the impact of the Court's decisions will affect their safety, livelihood, family health and in many cases their very future. Women and girls are affected by a whole host of issues on which the Supreme Court hears cases: educational equality, affirmative action, discrimination and civil rights, workplace protections and benefits, health care issues, pensions and retirement security, social security and environmental safety.
In addition, the civil and Constitutional rights of a majority of the people of this nation will be in question, whether the issues involve race, color, religion, age, gender, disability or sexual identity. The next Supreme Court justice must have a track record of giving more than lip service to these important protections.
And finally, please consider how important it is to protect the lives and futures of the girls and women who rely on the guarantees and protections of Roe v. Wade. Any potential jurist for the highest court in the land should respect the importance of this landmark ruling that accords women the final say in determining their reproductive future. Roberts clearly does not and must be opposed.
I look forward to hearing from you on this matter and will keep in touch with your office as the time for a vote nears.
Sincerely,
ME
This is the one I sent with the National Orginazation for Women.
Georgie boy's choice - bad idea
George W. Bush has nominated extremist Judge John G. Roberts to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the resignation of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Tell your Senators to oppose Roberts and any Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade and limit the rights, freedoms and legal safeguards we have fought for and won.
As O'Connor's replacement, Roberts would cast the deciding vote on countless matters of individual rights where O'Connor had been a key vote, often in a 5-to-4 split-issues like abortion and birth control, affirmative action, privacy rights, disability rights, Title IX equal educational opportunity, family and medical leave, health care, environmental protection and dozens of other crucial issues for decades to come. For young women, Roberts' votes could determine their access to birth control and abortion for their entire reproductive lifetimes.
Action Needed:
Contact your Senators immediately and demand their opposition to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, a staunch opponent of women's rights and civil rights.
Forward this message to friends, family and colleagues. We need to flood the Senate with messages that our rights are on the line!
Support our organizing to defeat this nominee - and ANY nominee who opposes our rights! Your contribution will help us get the word out in key states!
Background:
Throughout his 26-year career, John G. Roberts has continually supported and promoted an anti-woman, anti-civil rights, and anti-worker agenda. NOW opposed his nomination to U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003 on these grounds and will continue to do so to protect the lives of all women and girls in the U.S.
Among our many concerns, Roberts actively opposes Roe v. Wade and wrote several amicus briefs while a Deputy Solicitor General. In one case where Roe was not even at issue, his brief offered gratuitously: "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also wrote a brief in a case NOW brought against Operation Rescue in our effort to stop violent blockades at abortion clinics. His brief and oral argument supported Operation Rescue, and argued that the blockades were merely an _expression of opposition to abortion. The Court's failure to protect women and clinics from these attacks helped us pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act the following year. [Bray, et al. v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, et al.]
In 2001, Roberts filed an amicus brief in Adarand v. Mineta, supporting a challenge to federal affirmative action programs. He also argued against Title IX, the equal educational opportunity law for women and girls as applied to college athletic programs in NCAA v. Smith.
While in private law practice, Roberts served as lead counsel for Toyota in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, in which he argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case involved a woman fired after asking Toyota for accommodations to do her job after being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The court ruled that while this condition impaired her ability to work, it did not impair her ability to perform a major life activity, and thus was not protected by the ADA.
He is also member of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative organization committed to returning to a pre-Civil War era of unquestioned states' rights and rolling back legislation that has advanced women's rights, civil rights, environmental protections and health and safety standards. Federalist Society heroes and leaders you might recognize are Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
The character and record of anyone nominated to our nation's highest court must be thoroughly reviewed and considered by the Senate in their important "advice and consent" role. The Senate must be certain the nominee can discern between personal conviction and interpretation of the law as they balance the interpretation of our Constitution and our democracy's promise to protect and expand the civil liberties of all people, not just the privileged few. John Roberts does not meet those standards.
Again, take action NOW!
Yep you got it I have already fired off this one and one other and will keep it up as he doesn't speak for me in anyway shape or form.
Tell your Senators to oppose Roberts and any Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade and limit the rights, freedoms and legal safeguards we have fought for and won.
As O'Connor's replacement, Roberts would cast the deciding vote on countless matters of individual rights where O'Connor had been a key vote, often in a 5-to-4 split-issues like abortion and birth control, affirmative action, privacy rights, disability rights, Title IX equal educational opportunity, family and medical leave, health care, environmental protection and dozens of other crucial issues for decades to come. For young women, Roberts' votes could determine their access to birth control and abortion for their entire reproductive lifetimes.
Action Needed:
Contact your Senators immediately and demand their opposition to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, a staunch opponent of women's rights and civil rights.
Forward this message to friends, family and colleagues. We need to flood the Senate with messages that our rights are on the line!
Support our organizing to defeat this nominee - and ANY nominee who opposes our rights! Your contribution will help us get the word out in key states!
Background:
Throughout his 26-year career, John G. Roberts has continually supported and promoted an anti-woman, anti-civil rights, and anti-worker agenda. NOW opposed his nomination to U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003 on these grounds and will continue to do so to protect the lives of all women and girls in the U.S.
Among our many concerns, Roberts actively opposes Roe v. Wade and wrote several amicus briefs while a Deputy Solicitor General. In one case where Roe was not even at issue, his brief offered gratuitously: "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also wrote a brief in a case NOW brought against Operation Rescue in our effort to stop violent blockades at abortion clinics. His brief and oral argument supported Operation Rescue, and argued that the blockades were merely an _expression of opposition to abortion. The Court's failure to protect women and clinics from these attacks helped us pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act the following year. [Bray, et al. v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, et al.]
In 2001, Roberts filed an amicus brief in Adarand v. Mineta, supporting a challenge to federal affirmative action programs. He also argued against Title IX, the equal educational opportunity law for women and girls as applied to college athletic programs in NCAA v. Smith.
While in private law practice, Roberts served as lead counsel for Toyota in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, in which he argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case involved a woman fired after asking Toyota for accommodations to do her job after being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The court ruled that while this condition impaired her ability to work, it did not impair her ability to perform a major life activity, and thus was not protected by the ADA.
He is also member of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative organization committed to returning to a pre-Civil War era of unquestioned states' rights and rolling back legislation that has advanced women's rights, civil rights, environmental protections and health and safety standards. Federalist Society heroes and leaders you might recognize are Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
The character and record of anyone nominated to our nation's highest court must be thoroughly reviewed and considered by the Senate in their important "advice and consent" role. The Senate must be certain the nominee can discern between personal conviction and interpretation of the law as they balance the interpretation of our Constitution and our democracy's promise to protect and expand the civil liberties of all people, not just the privileged few. John Roberts does not meet those standards.
Again, take action NOW!
Yep you got it I have already fired off this one and one other and will keep it up as he doesn't speak for me in anyway shape or form.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)