hezekiah jones

Very nice job, ybnormal.

But Cone had shown little interest in politics until 1994, when at least 10 children had died in the swinging cradles produced by his company, Graco Children's Products. When their parents threatened to sue, Cone and his brother began contributing to candidates who promised to limit a citizen's ability to sue corporate America.

Ah, so that's what tort reform is all about, eh?

Toto

Good research, ybnormal.

Mr. $ekolow was busy yesterday defending Operation Rescue in the Supreme Court. He was interviewed on NPR. He seemed to be claiming that the First Amendment protected the right of an anti-abortion protestor to bash a doctor's patient with a picket sign, but perhaps I missed something.

gilly54

I love it!

Buffman

ybnormal

I started getting a very unset stomach when I did the same thing concerning the sponsors of the Library of Congress Exhibit on "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic." If it can't be labeled a right wing conspiracy, then it is religious incest on a very grand scale...and from what I have been able to determine, all perfectly legal. That is what I find to be the most depressing. Legal superstition, fear and ignorance for profit and power. It has to be one of the most brilliant, pervasive and successful propganda campaigns ever mounted. It makes the efforts by the pre-WW II Germans and those of international Communism pale by comparison.

But then, just two years ago, there were some in these very forums who viewed me as a paranoid alarmist who saw fundamentalist Christian hanky-panky everywhere. And when I inferred that there had been a bloodless coup in our government, many folks only smiled and went back to there everyday personal interests and concerns. Even today, the majority of Americans have no idea what is going on right under their noses. We are losing our constitutional liberties and protections and applauding the loss. That scares the hell out of me.

Stephen Maturin

Next up is a ruling by the original three-judge panel on motions for reconsideration, but statements in the opinion on Banning's motion to intervene leave no doubt as to how that'll turn out.

I figured that the Ninth Circuit would use this standing business to dump the whole case back in the trial court's lap. That could still happen at the en banc level, but it doesn't appear at all likely at this point. The panel decided to address the merits of the standing issue, so an en banc court would probably follow suit. The panel's latest analysis of that issue is a thing of beauty, even better than the standing analysis from the June opinion, IMO.

Having a well-developed internal bullshit alarm is a good thing, Hezekiah, especially where firms such as Foley & Lardner are concerned. Having tangled with that outfit myself, it's impossible for me to believe that they do anything for free. I have no idea where the money's coming from, but ybnormal's outstanding post makes for interesting reading! Were I in Newdow's shoes, I'd give serious consideration to subpoenaing billing records, retainer agreements, etc. It's doubtful that any court would order production of such records, but it would make interesting "What are they trying to hide?" fodder for the press.