Editor Posts

I can't wait for the Saint to get some scrutiny :

 

Sen. John McCain championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers.

Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks.

Good thing he stays away from lobbyists and he learned his lesson after the Keating Five scandal..

From the good folks at GoLeft.TV

There's a move afoot on Capitol Hill to rein in some of the vast powers
conferred upon government investigators by the PATRIOT Act, the infamous,
hastily crafted law written in response to the September 11th attacks. New legislation has
been introduced in both Houses of Congress intended to curb the FBI's ability to
collect private data on virtually anybody using a tool called a national
security letter (NSL). The bills come in the wake of yet another damaging FBI
inspector general report on the bureau's abuse of its expanded
authorities.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled to uphold Indiana'a voter ID laws. These laws have the effect of making it more difficult for the elderly and the poor to vote. However, they have the "benefit" of ensuring that that our elections will never suffer the voting fraud like we have no record of taking place in the 20th century!

That's right-- make it harder to vote in order to promote society's interest in  preventing something that literally never happens. 

In dissent, Justices Souter and Ginsburg:

Indiana’s "Voter ID Law" threatens to impose nontrivial
burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s
citizens, [] and a significant percentage of those individuals are
likely to be deterred from voting. The statute is
unconstitutional under the balancing standard of Burdick v. Takushi,
504 U. S. 428 (1992): a State may not burden the right to vote merely
by invoking abstract interests, be they legitimate, [] or even
compelling, but must make a particular, factual showing that threats to
its interests outweigh the particular impediments it has imposed. The State has made no such justification here, and as to some aspects of its law, it has hardly even tried.

 More here.

They'll keep repeating that they are being played even as they are being played and then get played again as they discuss how they are getting played.... Did I just get played?