Awesome Rocky Letters Today
November 7th is fast approaching, and the letters are showing it.
No, judges do not serve 'for a lifetime'
Third, rather than "growing stale," in most professions - like medicine, surgery, teaching, executives in business - it is widely understood that experience enhances professional performance. It is the same in the law. Judging means being conservative, exercising judgment and applying precedent to current cases, not being "dynamic" and "fresh," as Horowitz prefers.
The Federalist Papers made a similar argument against limiting judges to short terms.
... [T]here can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. ... a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.
The argument against term limits continues,
That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence.Tancredo's classless flier is the final straw
I'm not sure how sincere this letter is. It bemoans the lack of principled debate and the unhealthy hyper-partisanship that exists in politics, attacking Tom Tancredo for only slinging mud against Bill Winter. But the letter itself does what it bemoans and ends, " ... [W]e deserve someone who will actually discuss all the issues and bring 'class' back to Congress. So, on Nov. 7, I choose a different direction - I choose Bill Winter."
Those last two words are the only mention of Bill Winter, and they say nothing about the man or his positions. The letter simply slings mud (albeit well-deserved mud) at Tancredo and claims Winter is the opposite. That is my experience. I've heard nothing from Tancredo but illegal immigration, whereas Winter has spoken on many subjects including illegal immigration, which he deals with practically and intelligently. But the letter should practice what it preaches - spend a paragraph complaining about Tancredo and three extolling the virtues of Bill Winter.
Polar opposites in 6th
And now a letter from someone who isn't even in Tancredo's district and obviously knows nothing at all about Bill Winter while tossing out the same old tired talking points that aren't even working anymore.
Tancredo has a spine and is unafraid of saying what needs to be said about the Islamofascists who wish to destroy us and our way of life.
65 percent rule for schools too inflexible
Another letter from a surprising number of sensible people in Centennial (it's a red stronghold, very conservative, but I've seen plenty of signs supporting Democrats. I think Angela Engel must live nearby, as there is especially a concentration near my house.)
The costs of heating, building maintenance, transportation, nurses, counselors, insurance, CSAP testing, communications, and on and on - all will vie with school security for leftover funding under the 65 percent rule; and some, like CSAPs and rural school buses, are untouchable. Plumbing leaks increase water bills.
Insurance is essential. Yet emergency money will have to come from somewhere. Amendment 39's potential for attempts to teach disturbed or ailing youngsters without counselor and nurse support is appalling. And in these times, how can we possibly want to cut down on security positions and equipment?
Rep. Berens should know strings attached
How seriously can you take a letter that starts out, "I am outraged!"?
The letter highlights Republican Rep. Berens getting lobbyist money for making a hole-in-one and ends
I am shocked at the horrendous decision-making that Berens showed when he took the cash. I demand, as his constituent, that he return it! Further, I will not be voting for him in his re-election bid. On Nov. 7, I will vote Democrat. I will not support influence-peddling-as- usual, especially on such a local level!
My smell-o-meter is going off with this one. I doubt this letter writer would have voted for Berens, anyway.
We can't afford to let Dems regain control
Sadly, a letter we can take all too seriously.
I reprint the letter in all its RWNJ glory so I can add appropriate linkages.
This midterm election boils down to this: If you want to appease terrorists who want to destroy our way of life, if you want illegal immigrants to invade our country, if you want to cut and run from Iraq and let extremist Muslims control the Middle East, if you want massive tax increases, if you want another stock market collapse, if you want more politics of personal destruction, if you want more hatred of America, if you want your guns taken away, if you favor abortions, if you want gays to be married, if you want more government regulations on everything, if you don't want to fix Social Security, then vote Democratic.
This is what they stand for. They have no agenda but to regain power.
The Dow Jones index is at a record high. Unemployment is at an all-time low. We are winning the war on terror despite the media's attempt to discredit it. This country cannot afford to let the Democrats take back control of anything. They will only destroy the gains we have made since the Bill and Hillary Clinton's scandalous, do-nothing presidency.
Betcha didn't know it was the Bill and Hillary Clinton Presidency.
GOP reality bizarre
Provides a succinct follow-up to the previous letter's bizarre reality.
Too many cherrypick their Scripture lessons
Trots out the usual negative Biblical regulations about killing mouthy children and owning slaves to highlight how ridiculous it is to look to the Bible for legal guidance and morality.
But what about the positive Biblical regulations?
Sure, the Bible says most sex is a sin, thus the basis for the bibliocentric to oppose all sexual liberty. But the Bible also requires giving generously to the poor, tending to the sick. So why do the religious conservatives generally oppose taxes, welfare, and universal healthcare? If Biblical mandates can be used as justification for limiting personal sexual freedom, why not use Biblical mandates to justify limiting personal financial freedom? (Libertarians are exempt from this argument ... I'm looking at you, Ed).
Graffiti small potatoes
Under this heading are two letters which call Denver a "sanctuary city."
It. Is. Not.