Comments on: GOP to Soak Wingnuts over Sotomayor

By: Petrocelli

Petrocelli — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:09:14 +0000

… and of once being useful …

By: dmac

dmac — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:53:06 +0000

didn’t read comments yet….

thanks for bringing up what naral didn’t do..again..

and i recall them saying one thing in a whopper way then doing the total opposite. and denying that is what they were doing, then gathering more money and doing it again..
==

sttp–2.65 here, too, usually yours is cheaper. was 2.09 just a few weeks ago.

=======

and, HOW many conservatives are on the court? how many moderates? how many liberals? oh, you can’t be a liberal and be a judge. i forgot.

i completely don’t understand the argument to justify no liberals. we have the far right wing on the court, why no far-left wing, let alone a ‘left’ anything? why is this ok?
why are they not using that argumenbt in their points? she’s not even a liberal!!!

By: Hugh

Hugh — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:36:53 +0000

I have written on this from time to time. Oil prices are being driven up by speculation in the futures market. This is an indication of the non-productive, even destructive uses the banks are making of the money they are getting either directly or indirectly from government policies. The futures market in oil remains attractive because the margins allow for leveraging ratios of 15-20 to one. In terms of traditional dynamics, there have been no wars or hurricanes and supply remains excellent.

With gasoline, there are a combination of factors: the beginning of the summer driving season and underutilization of refinery capacity. Despite this inventories are excellent. I think the short story here is that oil companies are hiding price increases behind the speculation in oil markets. Given the state of the economy and supply, there is no reason at all that gas should be over $2/gal.

By: juslin

juslin — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:15:39 +0000

hehehehehe! good one

By: STTPinOhio

STTPinOhio — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:13:45 +0000

Hugh, what’s your take on why we’re getting hosed again at the pump.

I woke up to $2.65/ gal today; 20 cents more than this weekend, and that was 20 cents more than last week.

My view is that the speculators are revving up the engines again, (albeit with less available leverage than before) trying to make their last killing before new regs are put into place.

We are at 19 year highs in reserves, and demand has been trending down over a full year now.

Absolutely no legitimate reason for 10% per week price increases, imho.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:07:57 +0000

Beat me to it. Actually I find none of the court conservatives that big a deal intellectually. Scalia mostly rants and makes stuff up but the quality of his arguments are really quite pathetic. Roberts is smoother, more researched but simply picks and chooses his arguments and citations to justify a decision he has already made on essentially political grounds. Kennedy is variable. Some of his stuff is godawful.

By: oldgold

oldgold — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:04:15 +0000

Here is the Daily Howler’s take on Turley:

As we’ve often said about Turley—though only in love: If he likes a president, he wants him removed. If not, he wants him arrested.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:02:12 +0000

Just saw Jon Turley of all people weighing in on the lack of ”intellectual heft” in her opinions

Well, you have to understand she would be moving in a circle with intellectual heavyweights like Thomas and Alito.

By: STTPinOhio

STTPinOhio — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:00:29 +0000

Perhaps she just appears diminished when compared to Clarence “Intellectual Heft, bottom third of his class, gives affirmative action a bad name” Thomas.

There, fixed it for you.

You will note I lobbed the ball nice and high for others to smash across the net.

You are welcome.

By: Gitcheegumee

Gitcheegumee — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:59:04 +0000

WHOA!!

Speaking of the Supremes,check THIS out,folks!:

Source: New York Times -AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agreed to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
…
The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.