Big ups on that. Same for me. The 2d. case where she sided with the off duty cop who would not let the trucker use the telephone to report his accident was a real scary decision to me. But she hasn’t been like that on SCOTUS so far.

I’m surprised that you didn’t go all over me for Dred Scott. I applaud you if you recognized the argument, however distasteful. Trust me, I’ve just used mouthwash to rid the taste.

Oh, I freely admit I was wrong about Sotomayor. And I’m relieved that she has proven me wrong.

The hindsight portion was not directed at you. I was thinking of columnists who said they knew all along, yet their early columns show nothing of the sort. I’ve lived through Warren, Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts. I keep hoping for a true civil liberties court following the Constitution and originalist thought (that means not just the Founding Fathers but the thought and justification for every Amendment following; the 13th, 14th, and 15th Reconstruction Amendments a good example because each amends the previous.

Further, Dred Scott was probably right, not morally by any means, but because nothing had been done Constitutionally to end that execrable institution of slavery; Plessy v Ferguson was judicial activism as there is nothing in the Constitution that addresses or justifies “Separate but Equal” and Brown v Education finally set it right, thus not judicial activism because after the 14th no state had the right to “Separate but Equal” given the results. Kelo under Roberts was a whole new low of attacking our basic rights. From a conservative court that should understand the underpinnings of rights and property (“asset forfeiture” anyone as not punishing the holder of the assets? Only SCOTUS could count the angels differently.).

I’m a Republican, and I agree wholeheartedly that Obama’s admin has been much better in this area than Bush. Bush’s AG should have gone after Arpaio, there was enough there before Obama’s inauguration and I was surprised it took Obama’s admin so long.

As for SCOTUS, you know that there is no predicting where Presidential appointments will actually go once on the bench. Sotomayer was a shoe-in for “boot-licker”, being a driven prosecutor, yet she has been surprising. The title “Supreme Court Justice” changes people in unforeseen ways, ignoring those who use hindsight to justify themselves.

I think the federal government has very little control or influence over local police departments.

And to the extent that it does–through federal civil rights investigations–Obama has been far more aggressive than Bush was.

Bush’s Supreme Court appointees have also been far more deferential to law enforcement than Obama’s have.

It may take time to overcome the basic human decency taught early, and some may successfully resist, but eventually too many will succumb.

Yes, I remember the barbarity of the Democrat Convention of ’08. I’m inclined to blame that on the Democrats.

Does it seem to anyone else that there have been more of these incidents, and they have been more egregious, under Obama than under Bush. I recall a great deal of anti-Bush hysteria that – it seemed to me – didn’t bear a lot of examination when it came to barbarism toward protesters. But as I say, I despise Obama.

What do you-all think?

Pay no attention America, just keep closing your eyes and saying “it’s a free country, it can’t happen here!”

P.S. Yay Mayor Rahm!