TampaYankee

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust. By Katherine Eban, Fortune Magazine June 27, 2012: 5:00 AM ET This is a long article best read at: http://features.blog...-furious-truth/

I couldn't agree more. Scalia has finally crossed a line he has been inching closer and closer to over the last few years. He clearly has been advocating political agenda through outside speeches at Universities and nonacademic groups. That finally has wandered into court opinion dictum that was totally independent of the case decided. That is ethically flawed as justices are supposed to at least have the appearance of impartiality with decisions based on the Constitution, Statue, and Precedent. Unfortunately, he won't recognize the ethical lapse, much less resign to restore a semblance to impartiality to the Court. The good news is that his ethical shortcomings are out in plain sight for all to see. BTW, the same applies to Clarence Thomas with respect to advocating political agendas in outside speaking engagements. Of course, I'd like to see these justices replaced based on the body of their decision making but I was content to wait on retirement as their was no other choice. However, Scalia has now shown in his own words that he no longer considers it part of judicial temperament to give even the appearance of impartiality. That undermines the integrity of the court for all to see. It is necessary to call on him to resign. It is a matter of principle, principle on which our country was founded.

Justice Scalia must resign By E.J. Dionne Jr., Wednesday, June 27, Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court. He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem. So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line. Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood. “After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.” What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate. “Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem,” the politician-justice proclaimed. “Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so. “Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Cue the tea party rally applause. As it happens, Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement. But if the 76-year-old justice wants to dispute this, he is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time. Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president. Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.” Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan? Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees. “I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.” It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become. See original article at: http://www.washingto...O06V_story.html

I guess that makes me a trend setter.

I avoid 3rd party tool bars at all costs. You never get nuthin for free. They are spying on you for the TB provider. No doubt Adobe or whoever else bundles tool bars with their upgrades get a gratuity from the TB provider. Stay clear. I don't know about you but I don't cotton to others in my knickers unless I invite them in.

Looks like a winner to me... and I have never seen him in DOOL or elsewhere. The last time I saw an episode was probably 40 years ago.

It is April 1st?

That would make me happy.

Fruit is actually a good source of sugar compared to the white processed stuff. All in moderation. I have been craving fruit for several months now too. Not sure why but I keep a container of mixed strawberries and blueberries in the fridge all the time, at least until the cherries stared coming in. Now blueberries and cherries. I also frequently drink pomegranate juice, mixed with diet 7-Up to cut the sugar intake. Lot's of benefits to these intensely colored dark and red fruits -- anti cancer, anti-hypertension, anti-inflammatory,... yada, yada, yada, ... They taste good too.

Sorry, just saw this. How interesting. If it is F4F then the problem with some people is they don't understand the long term effects of pissing in the well. If it is Google then FUCK Google. I know that will get me on Big Brother's List.

I believe pieroges are Polish, not Greek.

Happy Birthday Chuck50 wherever you are. Best wishes.

My gosh, we lose some freedoms we have had since the founding (re: Patriot Act, unreasonable search and seizure) and get some new ones today. Would that we only gained freedoms with the passage of time.

I do every day. Never had one, likely never will.

I often get that with Chrome but never with other browsers. It is a pain in the ass. It may be them, it may be us. Either way, it is peculiar to them. And it is not consistent as it happens for one window and not the next window, all in the same session. It seems that the browser times out too quickly -- almost like the browser is not allowing enough time to receive a response before throwing in the towel.

Of course not. That does not follow at all. People want to be free in all societies but in some societies expressing that interest publicly can be counter productive to one's livelihood and possibly life. Not to publicly express that does not mean that someone thinks it wrong, only that it can be damaging to one's welfare. A lot of progress has been made in gay rights recently but, like it or not, there is a lot of homophobia in this country, more in some places than others, more in some families than others. That can be detrimental to livelihood interests and personal relationships. It is up to each individual to weigh the importance and risks for each of those interests on one's life.

If so then they haven't been listening to anyone but Faux News. Now Faux News is launching a Spanish language to in order to pollute the minds of latino community with their lies, distortions and half-truths.. :mad:

Generally, I believe it is lamentable to see a person outed by a third party be they media or another individual. People should be respected and their lives should be theirs to live and control. I do not know what goes in to any individual's decision of how to live privately and publicly. It is not my business. But he/she should be allowed the respect to live as they wish as long as they do no active harm to others. The exception is when one's personal life and public life conflict in a that way reveals the person to be a public hypocrite. They give up their right to privacy by their public hypocracy.

Au contraire mon frere, we held a private party in the backroom in honor of His-Highness-To-Be, complete with party favors and a PW look-alike who was willing to accept our shenanigans as well as our appreciation. As in all private parties, details are omitted to protect the innocent.

Just as long as you are not hung up on blond hair and blue eyes. But then I gather that you are fixated on anatomy of a more southern exposure.

BFD, they were not using them, bitter muscle queens. Get off you ass and make your own move or write a book, or better yet, sit down and shut up. How would Lawrence of Arabia looked if it was based only on Peter O'toole's personal experience or The Driector's, David Lean.

The CEO of Adidas should have his head checked and his ass kicked. Yeah, they are just shoes and if that was all it was about that would be fine. However, for Adidas it is about customers and there are many who might be offended by these -- the type of customers Adidas goes after. File this under Stupid Moves along with round saltines, Classic Coke, BK bugers without the flame-lick taste, the Edsel, ...

I don't know enough about him to rule him out. He's cute, he's legal, and a willing bottom -- at least in my fantasy. Fantasy is what we are talking about, right?

I'm not one for carrying AF's water. They have engaged in some questionable to shoddy practices, but this has the smell of an easy-money scam to me.

Thanks for the recognition for all of us fathers.