Comments Posted By Fritz
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 146 Comments
Rick,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 4.10.2005 @ 12:07
Did your brother Terry grow up in the same home with you? Must be something with the water around Georgetown.
Did you watch the same Roberts hearing that I did? What have we gotten from Scalia, Thomas? Nothing. We know how they will vote, but mostly combative alienation. Roberts will be studied for generations and will be the new mold for constitutional law. Roberts told us how he is going to set the new precedent for Mulberry vs Madison. The reach of the Court will be tempered. Look how convincing he was with hostile Democrats, and think about how he will be able to solidify consensus with Kennedy, O'Connor. In the future, we won't even care who is put on the Court.
Rick,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 3.10.2005 @ 13:42
Since when did the Constitution require Justices must be judges? Rehnquist wasn't a judge. If Estrada had been nominated, would you be making the same arguments? Had he been so, Conservatives would be cheering. She simply is an unknown, Cheney isn't worried. Her vote will probably be a second of Roberts. Conservatives didn't rally around Roberts until after the hearings, this may be the same situation.
Roberts was Bush's Chief Justice choice long before O'Connor's surprise retirement. Since Miers was instrumental in that selection, don't you think she possibly made it clear that she considered Roberts philosophy proper?
Comment Posted By Fritz On 3.10.2005 @ 13:26
Big Texas,
You wrote: “Texas law makes it a felony for corporations and labor unions to make political contributions to campaigns.That is correct, but that is not the charge. Delay is being charged with conspiracy to break that law but was not charged breaking the law itself, had that charge been made, the conspiracy would be relevant. Earle doesn't have evidence that law itself was violated. He has already gone through the minutia surrounding the expenses allowed to be financed by corporate contributions.
Comment Posted By Fritz On 30.09.2005 @ 10:42
Were corporate contributions accepted, yes. Were the contributions legal, yes. Were corporate contributions accepted by the PAC to cover eligible expenses previously paid with earlier raised hard money, yes. Did this free up hard money to be distributed to campaigns, yes. Can hard money be distributed to campaigns, yes. Does Texas law recognize fungibility of contributions, yes. Did the PAC's contributions to campaigns exceed hard money donations, no. Is this a normal process in political fund raising, yes. Where is the crime that was conspired? Is this Earle's Florida Supreme Court changing the law after the fact for political semantics, yes.
Rick,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.09.2005 @ 13:33
Ronnie Earle is doing his Captain Dan Guard papers, he just knows it has to be true!
Rick,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 29.09.2005 @ 06:48
Earle has tried for 2 years to indict Delay on the crime of corporate contributions, but has failed to make a case. So he is indicting Delay for conspiring to break that law, a law he is unable to indict on. This is a stretch. A judge will throw this out.
Rick,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 15.09.2005 @ 08:52
I'm still not convinced. You are making an argument, that judges should legislate from the bench.
THE SUPERDOME AND CONVENTION CENTER: WHAT WENT WRONG?
Rick,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 12.09.2005 @ 08:40
One would think, that if we spend billions of federal dollars on local and state governments to establish emergency management expertise, those local & state governments could handle anticipated emergencies. The same reason New Orleans was a disaster in response to the levee flooding, is the same reason that the levee system wasn't secure; the economic moral hazard of the federal government as the ultimate responsibility. I don't think FEMA should be removed from the Homeland Security Department. If you do so, local and state governments will be even less reactive to non-anticipated disasters.
Rick,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 6.09.2005 @ 16:22
The biggest expert complainers that would "just send in the Guard" are the same voices calling those in support of Iraq chicken-hawks. What about lack of body armor, they would just send in the police and Guard into unknown danger. How little "planning" they advocate for the risk of others.
THE GHOST OF CHUCK HAGEL CHANNELS THE GHOST OF VIET NAM
Rick,
Comment Posted By Fritz On 24.08.2005 @ 13:01
Hagel votes Nebraska but talks Georgetown.
