The American Progressives: Teddy Roosevelt Vs. Woodrow Wilson

Posted on September 23, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Economics, Education, Employment, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Technology, Uncategorized, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

 American Progressives

American Fascists (Liberals’ Heros)

How Democrats & Progressives Can Win: George Lakoff


 

The Next Progressive Era

The Progressive Era


 

Progressivism at the National Level


 

Progressives’ Programs

“The Indomitable Teddy Roosevelt” – Harrison Engle (1/3)

“The Indomitable Teddy Roosevelt” – Harrison Engle (2/3)

“The Indomitable Teddy Roosevelt” – Harrison Engle (3/3)

Teddy Roosevelt and the Origins of the Modern Welfare-Warfare State

 

Woodrow Wilson’s Revolution Within the Form (Part 1 of 3)

Woodrow Wilson’s Revolution Within the Form (Part 2 of 3)

Woodrow Wilson’s Revolution Within the Form (Part 3 of 3)

Theodore Roosevelt Progressive Covenant with the People 1912

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Theodore Roosevelt 1 of 9

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Theodore Roosevelt 2 of 9

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Theodore Roosevelt 3 of 9

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Theodore Roosevelt 4 of 9

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Theodore Roosevelt 5 of 9

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Theodore Roosevelt 6 of 9

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Theodore Roosevelt 7 of 9

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Theodore Roosevelt 8 of 9

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Theodore Roosevelt 9 of 9

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 1 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 2 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 3 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 4 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 5 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 6 of 6

A New Progressive America

 Background Articles and Videos

Liberal Fascism

Progressivism

“…In U.S. history, the term progressivism refers to a broadly-based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century, generally considered to be left wing in nature. The initial progressive movement arose as a response to the vast changes brought by the industrial revolution. Contemporary progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice[1]. Social progressivism, which states that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives. Alonzo L. Hamby defines progressivism as the “political movement that addresses ideas, impulses, and issues stemming from modernization of American society. Emerging at the end of the nineteenth century, it established much of the tone of American politics throughout the first half of the century.”[2]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

“…Political progressivism and cultural progressivism

In the early 20th century, politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, Bull-Moose Republicans, and the United States Progressive Party began to pursue social, environmental, political, and economic reforms. Chief among these aims was the pursuit of trustbusting (breaking up very large monopolies), support for labor unions, public health programs, decreased corruption in politics, and environmental conservation[citation needed].

Progressivism at the turn of the twentieth century was largely a bipartisan effort led by William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Robert La Follette[citation needed]. One leader, Bryan, had been linked to the Populist movement of the 1890s, while the other major leaders were opposed to Populism. When Roosevelt left the Republican party in 1912, he took with him many of the intellectual leaders of progressivism, but very few political leaders[citation needed]. The Republican party then became notably more committed to business-oriented and efficiency oriented progressivism, typified by Taft and Herbert Hoover. Political progressivism was also represented in the candidacies of economic philosopher Henry George and the Single Tax movement, President Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull-Moose Party, and the Cleveland mayoral administration of Tom L. Johnson[citation needed].

The foundation of the progressive tendency was rooted in the uniquely American philosophy of pragmatism, which was primarily developed by John Dewey[citation needed]. However, two of Dewey’s most prominent students, Mortimer J. Adler and Brand Blanshard, both rejected the moral relativism inherent in Pragmatism; and Blanshard set out a devastating critique of Pragmatism in his two-volume study “The Nature of Thought”[citation needed]. Adler and Blanshard provided a similar alternative view (moral absolutism grounded in Aristotelian views) far more consonant with the moral agenda of Progressivism[citation needed].

Another intellectual strand in Progressivism has been populism, which can range from the political left to the political right[citation needed]. Populism has often manifested itself as a distrust of concentrations of power in the hands of politicians, corporations, families, and special interest groups, generating calls for reform[citation needed].

Equally significant to progressive-era reform were the crusading journalists, known as muckrakers. These journalists revealed to middle class readers the evils of economic privilege, political corruption, and social injustice[citation needed]. Their articles appeared in McClure’s Magazine and other reform periodicals. Some muckrakers focused on corporate abuses. Ida Tarbell, for instance, exposed the activities of the Standard Oil Company. In The Shame of the Cities (1904), Lincoln Steffens dissected corruption in city government. In Following the Color Line (1908), Ray Stannard Baker criticized race relations. Other muckrakers assailed the U.S. Senate, railroad practices, insurance companies, and fraud in patent medicine.

Novelists, too, revealed corporate injustices. Theodore Dreiser drew harsh portraits of a type of ruthless businessman in The Financier (1912) and The Titan (1914). In The Jungle (1906) Socialist Upton Sinclair repelled readers with descriptions of Chicago’s meatpacking plants, and his work led to support for remedial food safety legislation. Leading intellectuals also shaped the progressive mentality. In The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), Thorstein Veblen attacked the “conspicuous consumption” of the wealthy. Educator John Dewey emphasized a child-centered philosophy of pedagogy, known as progressive education, which affected schoolrooms for three generations.[16]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

Theodore D. Roosevelt

“…Theodore D. Roosevelt (October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919;[2] pronounced /ˈroʊzəvɛlt/[3]), also called “T.R.”,[4] was the youngest President of the United States,[5] but he is most remembered for his energy, his range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his “cowboy” image. He was a leader of the Republican Party and founder of the short-lived Bull Moose Party. Before becoming the 26th President (1901–1909) he held offices at the municipal, state, and federal level of government. Roosevelt’s achievements as a naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier are as much a part of his fame as any office he held as a politician.

Born to a wealthy family, Roosevelt was a sickly child who stayed at home studying natural history. In response to his physical weakness, he embraced a strenuous life. He attended Harvard, where he boxed and developed an interest in naval affairs. A year out of Harvard, in 1881 he ran for a seat in the state legislature. His first historical book, The Naval War of 1812, published in 1882, established his reputation as a serious historian. After a few years of living in the Badlands, Roosevelt returned to New York City, where he gained fame for fighting police corruption. He was effectively running the US Department of the Navy when the Spanish American War broke out; he resigned and led a small regiment in Cuba known as the Rough Riders, earning himself the Medal of Honor. After the war, he returned to New York and was elected Governor; two years later he was nominated for and elected Vice President of the United States.

In 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated, and Roosevelt became president at 42. Roosevelt attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. Roosevelt coined the phrase “Square Deal” to describe his domestic agenda, emphasizing that the average citizen would get a fair shake under his policies. As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement. On the world stage, Roosevelt policies were characterized by his comment, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. Roosevelt was the force behind the completion of the Panama Canal; he sent out the Great White Fleet to display American power, and he negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Roosevelt declined to run for re-election in 1908. After leaving office, he embarked on a safari to Africa and a trip to Europe. On his return to the US, a rift developed between Roosevelt and his anointed[6][7] successor as President, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt attempted in 1912 to wrest the Republican nomination from Taft, and when he failed, he launched the Bull Moose Party. In the election, Roosevelt became the only third party candidate to come in second place, beating Taft but losing to Woodrow Wilson. After the election, Roosevelt embarked on a major expedition to South America; the river on which he traveled now bears his name. The trip damaged his health, and he died a few years later, at the age of 60. He has been among the most honored of American presidents, including having his face carved into Mount Rushmore. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Roosevelt

Woodrow Wilson

“…Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Ph.D. (December 28, 1856–February 3, 1924)[1] was the 28th President of the United States. A leading intellectual of the Progressive Era, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. With Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft dividing the Republican Party vote, Wilson was elected President as a Democrat in 1912. To date he is the only President to hold a doctorate of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree and the only President to serve in a political office in New Jersey before election to the Presidency.

In his first term, Wilson supported a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act,[2] Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America’s first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913. In a move that garnered a backlash from civil rights groups, and is still criticized today, Wilson supported imposing segregation in many federally-funded agencies,[3][4] which involved firing black workers from numerous posts.[5]

Narrowly re-elected in 1916, Wilson’s second term centered on World War I. He based his re-election campaign around the slogan “he kept us out of the war,” but U.S. neutrality would be short-lived. When German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann sent a message to Mexico offering to return Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to them if they would ally with Germany in the event of war, and began unrestricted submarine warfare, Wilson wrote several admonishing notes to Germany, and, finally in April 1917, asked Congress to declare war. He focused on diplomacy and financial considerations, leaving the waging of the war primarily in the hands of the military establishment. On the home front, he began the United States’ first effective draft in 1917, raised billions in war funding through Liberty Bonds, set up the War Industries Board, promoted labor union growth, supervised agriculture and food production through the Lever Act, took over control of the railroads, enacted the first federal drug prohibition, and suppressed anti-war movements. National women’s suffrage was also achieved under Wilson’s presidency.

In the late stages of the war, Wilson took personal control of negotiations with Germany, including the armistice. He issued his Fourteen Points, his view of a post-war world that could avoid another terrible conflict. He went to Paris in 1919 to create the League of Nations and shape the Treaty of Versailles, with special attention on creating new nations out of defunct empires. Largely for his efforts to form the League, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1919, during the bitter fight with the Republican-controlled Senate over the U.S. joining the League of Nations, Wilson collapsed with a debilitating stroke. He refused to compromise, effectively destroying any chance for ratification. The League of Nations was established anyway, but the United States never joined. Wilson’s idealistic internationalism, now referred to as “Wilsonianism”, which calls for the United States to enter the world arena to fight for democracy, has been a contentious position in American foreign policy, serving as a model for “idealists” to emulate and “realists” to reject ever since. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_wilson

Center for American Progress

“…The Center for American Progress is a liberal[1][2][3][4] public policy research and advocacy organization. Its website describes it as “… a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all.”[5]

Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Citing the significant number of its staff and former staff that have been appointed to positions in the Obama Administration, Time magazine recently declared that there is “no group in Washington with more influence at this moment in history.”[6][7]

…”

“…The Center for American Progress was created in 2003 as an alternative to think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.[8]

Since its inception, the Center has gathered a group of high-profile senior fellows, including Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan; Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council under President Bill Clinton; Ruy Teixeira, political scientist and author of The Emerging Democratic Majority; and, most recently, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.

The Center manages a radio studio, and offers the studio for use to shows across the ideological spectrum. It is used daily by the Bill Press Show, a syndicated talk radio program broadcast from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern Time weekday mornings. Jones Radio Networks is the syndicator.

The Center was often featured prominently on the Al Franken Show on the Air America Radio network, where Christy Harvey and Al Franken criticized the Bush administration at length, accusing it of dishonesty and incompetence.

The Center has no information on its website about its funding, but the Washington Post reported that “seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as financier George Soros (and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler)” assisted its formation.[9] The authors of Her Way, a biography of Hillary Clinton, also assert that the Democracy Alliance, a progressive donors collective, has funded the Center. They also assert that the Sandlers and Soros provided seed money.[10]

The Center helped Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) develop “strategic redeployment”,[11] a comprehensive plan for the Iraq War that includes a timetable and troop withdrawals. …”

Funding

“…The Center for American Progress is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The institute receives approximately $25 million per year in funding from a variety of sources, including individuals, foundations, and corporations. From 2003 to 2007, the center received about $15 million in grants from 58 foundations. Major individual donors include George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and Herb and Marion Sandler. The Center receives undisclosed sums from corporate donors. [21]

Some open government groups, such as the Sunlight Foundation and the Campaign Legal Center, criticize the Center’s failure to disclose its contributors, particularly since it is so influential in appointments to the Obama administration.[22] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

Center for American Progress

http://www.americanprogress.org/

New America Foundation

“…The New America Foundation is a non-profit public policy institute and think tank located in Washington, D.C.. It was founded in 1998 by Ted Halstead, Sherle Schwenninger, Michael Lind and Walter Russell Mead.

In 2007 Steve Coll, a former managing editor of The Washington Post, succeeded Ted Halstead as President of the New America Foundation. Well-known board members include political commentator Fareed Zakaria, Christine Todd Whitman, international relations theorist Francis Fukuyama, Atlantic Monthly correspondent James Fallows, former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson, and economist Laura D’Andrea Tyson. Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, is chairman-elect of the foundation.[1].

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Foundation

New America Foundation

http://www.newamerica.net/

World Communitarianism & the Fabian Society

The Socialists in the U.S. Congress and Their Connection To Fabian Socialism… (Excerpt)

Population Control: The Eugenics Connection – Part 1

Population Control: The Eugenics Connection – Part 2

OBAMA FABIAN SOCIALIST STORM

Authors@Google: George Lakoff

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Talk Radio Audiences Revolt Against Fairness Doctrine

Posted on October 25, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Links, People, Politics, Rants, Regulations, Talk Radio, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

“Do you feel lucky, well do you punk!”

 

Dirty Harry – Clint Eastwood

 

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

 

Those Democrat and Republican members of Congress that are seriously considering bringing back the Fairness Doctrine are playing with dynamite.

Over 100 million Americans are listening to talk radio everyday.

Mess with talk radio and you will have a ten million men and women march on Congress.

Unfortunatley, many members of Congress are that arrogant and stupid to try.

Just another example of socialism–“spread the wealth around”.

Go ahead, Make my day!

Sudden Impact – “Go Ahead. Make My Day”


 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Boehner on so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ – 6/28/07

 

Fairness Doctrine” — Feinstein Outlawing Talk Radio

 

Debate over the Fairness Doctrine on Fox News Sunday

 

Kucinich Discusses Fairness Doctrine on Lou Dobbs

 

Accuracy in Media – Group Condemns Congressional Hypocrisy

Dem Sen On Fairness Doctrine

 

2008 UP & COMING ” POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE ( FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ) ” / PART 13

 

Rep. Pence: Fairness Doctrine and “Freedom Works”

 

Fairness Doctrine

“The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

 

Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair

by Adam Thierer

“…If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

 

Here it comes: Sen. Bingaman heralds Fairness Doctrine return

By Michelle Malkin

“…N.M. Sen. Jeff Bingaman cheers the return of the Fairness Doctrine as a “higher calling,” via the Jim Villanucci show on KKOB.

Radio Equalizer has the scoop.

Tilling the soil for the Chicago gangland thugs… ”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/22/here-it-comes-sen-bingaman-heralds-fairness-doctrine-return/

 

The history and possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine

by Nat Hentoff

“…The term “Fairness Doctrine” exemplifies what George Orwell called “Newspeak”: it uses language to mask the deleterious effects of its purported meaning. The Fairness Doctrine itself was in effect from 1949 until 1987. It required that radio broadcasts devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance, and that the broadcaster do that fairly by offering reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard. If the Federal Communications Commission found a radio station in repeated violation of this Doctrine, it could take away the station’s license — a business form of capital punishment. …”

“…Before the Fairness Doctrine was ended, at least for the time being, in 1987 — Congressman Hinchey could yet prevail if the Democrats retake Congress — Richard Salant, head of CBS News while the Doctrine was flourishing, said to me:

Suppose the English government had told Tom Paine that he could go ahead and publish all he liked — but only if at the back of his pamphlets he also printed the Royal Governor’s views. That command, far from the implementation of free speech, would have been just the opposite. It’s a restriction of speech if, in order to be allowed to express your own views, [the government demands] you also have to present those of someone arguing on the other side.

James Madison did not have the bifurcation of free speech in mind when he submitted his draft of the First Amendment.”

http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_04/opinion_07.html

 

Group Led By Clinton’s John Podesta Outlines Assault of Conservative Radio

“…With that in mind, the left-leaning Center for American Progress published a report Thursday detailing how conservatives dominate the talk radio dial, and exactly what needs to be done legislatively for liberals to wrest control over this medium (emphasis added throughout):

  • Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
  • Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
  • Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

Imagine that.

 

For those unfamiliar with the Center, its President and CEO is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. And:

  • The Executive Vice President for Management is Sarah Rosen, who was also a member of the Clinton administration.
  • Senior Vice President for Development Debbie Goldberg worked for the Clinton campaign.
  • Senior Vice President and Director David Halperin was a speech writer for President Clinton.
  • Vice President of Communications Jennifer Palmieri was Clinton’s White House Deputy Press Secretary.
  • Senior Vice President for External Affairs Winnie Stachelberg worked at the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton.
  • Vice President of Finance and Operations Brad Kiley worked for the Clinton administration.
  • Ditto Peter Rundlet, Anna Soellner, Debbie Fine, and Michelle Jolin.

In reality, the staff and Senior Fellows listing of this Center reads like a Clinton administration Who’s Who. …”

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13642

Center for American Progress

“The Center for American Progress is an American liberal political policy research and advocacy organization. Its website describes it as “…a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all.”[1]

Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. …”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

 

Center for American Progress

http://www.americanprogress.org/

 

Fairness Doctrine Watch: Sen. Stabenow makes new pro-gagging noise

By Michelle Malkin

“…You know grass-roots conservatives on talk radio and in New Media are getting under the Democrats’ skin when they publicly renew their Fairness Doctrine agenda again.See.

Loud Folks, keep cranking it up. …” 

 

Shame, Cubed
Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.

By Bill Whittle

“The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, A Chicago Public Radio station. And this time, candidate Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking at a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American – or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all Hope, Ye Who Enter Here:

 

Barack Obama, in 2001:

“You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the Civil Rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of re-distribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution – at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

“And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

A caller then helpfully asks:

“The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

“You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

…”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...