I agree without almost everything you wrote but…..George W. Bush was not elected president in 2000. He was selected president by the Supreme Court.

While agreeing with President Obama on Iraq withdrawl & a shorter leash on finance sector “self-regulation”, it's not too much to ask for a candidate for one of the most powerful positions on the globe to share history and credentials: birth, health, educational, and political. If we currently had a white Republican President with a similar withholding of information, the fury from the mainstream press would be both powerful and understandable. It's an issue (like immigration) that transcends race and ethnicity, though opportune for some to make the issues that simple and scathing.

A 9.0 decade is the very media math that has Fox far out in front; dropping the once main now vain/lame stream, in cycling lingo, “way off the back.”

You wouldn't know a fact if it rested on your chin! And explaining the facts to you is like talking to a child.

The facts are as follows:

1) Bush won the count in every independent review of the 2000 election.

2) All the U.S. Supreme court did was keep the Florida Supreme Court from demanding re-counts until they achieved their desired result.

3) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 to hear the case.

Shouldn't you be watchin' Sponge Bob?

By by the way, Abdul, our national 'unity' lasted as long as the scumbag Democrat leadership could contain themselves–about two weeks.

I wonder how many stories we'll read about Obama not being informed about the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas until three hours after the fact………..

And as for local Top Tens, you have to put Ballard's election in that group. There hasn't been a local politician misjudge the elctorate more since Goldy actually thought he could get elected governor. Which was hilarious, givne his Indy track record. Ballard's election was one paert luck, one part incumbent hubris, and one part righit-place-right-time. Combined with just enough political accuracy to judge the electorate's anger.

If only Greg had followed through for, oh–a couple of weeks.

Rico, you can always be counted on to raise the level of discussion on this blog. You have a unique way of using your fourth grade insults to demean YOURSELF. Keep posting as it just reminds everyone of what a nut job you are.

I think the Tsunomi (Spelling??) that killed over 250k people should definately be on that list. Doesn't matter what we think say or do, just reminds us that we are all mortal.

Hey, Rico–the SCOTUS decision was 5-4, with Madame Justice O'Connor later telling folks privately what most SCOTUS scholars already know: this was one of their darkest hours.

I was hoping you were taking a long winter's nap. Alas, I was wrong.

Once again, the Supremes decided to hear the case by a 7 to 2 vote.

And many of us are used to you being wrong, TA.

Oh, Rico…the cert was heard on a unanimous vote.

The actual case was a 5-4 vote.

Do you even understand how SCOTS works?

It was not heard on a unanimous vote. It was 7 to 2 to hear the case. I effin know what the actual vote was.

And I happen to know far more than you on how the Supreme Court was intended to work. You've demonstrated your disdain for our forefathers intent for the Court by your support of our Affirmative Action justice Sotomayor. The justices of the Supreme Court aren't there to write law, but determine its constitutionality. Much of the downfall of this country has been due to liberal justices who want to legislate from the bench.

Hmmm…I don't see “case law” listed anywhere in the Indiana Constitution or Indiana code. It's also missing from the federal Constitution.

So, where can I find something that tells one that We the People must obey “case law”?

IC 1-1-2-1
Hierarchy of law
Sec. 1. The law governing this state is declared to be:
First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state.
Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions.
Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section.
(Formerly: Acts 1852,1RS, c.61, s.1.)

I'm curious…what was the emergency that existed in Indiana in 1976 ??

IC 1-1-1-9
Effective date
Sec. 9. Because an emergency exists, the Indiana Code takes effect January 21, 1976.

IndyAries,

“I'm curious…what was the emergency that existed in Indiana in 1976 ??”

The “danger” of violence in Gary, Indiana, during the steel strike, 1976.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21024.pdf

And, the Wabash floods of the same year.

Hello Jack. Thanks for the info.

Hello Jack. Thanks for the info.