The 5-4 opinon was on whether to remand with instructions to redo the count statewide instead of the selective count. Five justices voted to end it right there, while 4 wanted the recount to proceed.

People have forgotten this – they portray it as a 5-4 extreme decision which it wasn't.

But when you call O'Connor a ditz, you demonstrate huge ego and ignorance. For instance:

I rarely agree with the opinions, written or verbal, of Mr. Justice Scalia. But I pour over any opinion he writes, and I try to familiarize myself with the matters on cert in that case. Because he's one of the court's most-brilliant writers ever. I learn every time I read him.

Now, if you were to ascribe the word “ditz” to Mr. Justice Thomas, oath delivered 10-1991, then I, and most court watchers, would heartily agree. Not because of his philosophical views, which are, by the by, ancient. But because he has the intellectual cusiosity of a toad. Which insults frogs.

You should read Bush-v-Gore. It's amazing in its content and scope. The court ruled 5-4 that the Fla. Supreme Court could not continue their review of the election. That's it. No more, no less. The implications were severe…as we all know. Hanging chads and all.
The fact that the court even agreed to hear the case before recounts were complete was viewed as landmark.

Taxpayer, normally I'd agree with you re:spending. But the economists I read, from all stripes, indicate the following;

Our economy is hopelessly tied to consumption. Like it or loathe it, over 80% of its fuel is consumption-driven. Would that it were savings- or investment-driven, but, it's not.

Take that unpleasant fact and couple it with this:

For seven years, our government spent hundreds of billions on an improbable and unwinnable war. At the same time we cut taxes to the wealthiest among us.

Now, I'm all for tax cuts when appropriate. Mine and yours, to be exact. But these dopey actions were practically akin to your household budget increasing by 75% and your income descreaing by 40-50%.

What you or the feds SPEND that money on, that's open for argument. What's not open for argument is the math. You simply cannot spend that kind of money, and decrease your income, without huge deficits.

And when those deficits accumulate at this rate, the only entity that can thaw the economy is the printer of money, aka stimulus spending. I'd hoped we'd see more in that department, but for some reason, it's not being spent fast enough on worthwhile infrastructure projects.

I don't rail against the money, so much as I rail against the practice of hoarding the stimulus cash. If government is going shopping, why the hell keep the money in mama's pocketbook? Spend the damned money already, so more folks cna get to work, pay taxes (at whatever rate) and get this God-be-damned deficit tackled.

Before my kids reach retirement age.

I've railed about government overspending and poor parenting for years, and poor journalism more of late. With Bush still in office, I called Abdul on these topics, carried signs on Meridian St., and spoke as a citizen at City-Council. Thanks to the public figures that encouraged my participation.

It's with “legitimate disagreements” that I again protest today in Bloomington. I don't hate all women because of Nancy Pelosi, nor all white guys because of Ted Stevens, nor everybody of color because of President Obama. The conversation and signs of the people I've met on protests seem to be of a similar ilk. But, I can't look into all their hearts, nor those of voters on election day.

I wish the present administration were pursuing economics differently, and agree with the stances on enhanced EPA mileage, withdrawl from Iraq, and an emphasis on volunteerism and education. But, quadrupling the incredible deficit Bush handed over, while expanding government and still borrowing billions per day is NUTS to me: black, white, purple with three horns, whatever.