SurveyUSA: Lieberman Gaining Strength
Some encouraging news from of all places Daily Kos. There is a diary up today by Bruin Kid, regarding the latest approval ratings for U.S. Senators from SurveyUSA, which shows that Joe Lieberman's numbers among Democrats generally and even liberals are moving up.
Here's the key passage from Bruin Kid's post (remember this is coming from a Lieberman critic, not a friend):
Last month's ratings showed Lieberman had suffered big drops in support from Democrats and liberals. This month, however, he seems to have recovered. His approvals among both Democrats and liberals are now both back at 50%.
He especially had a HUGE jump of support among liberals. (WTF?) This, BTW, to go from -16% to +7%, is outside the margin of error. So something's up here. And remember, this was way BEFORE Bill Clinton's visit to Connecticut, so that does not explain the jump.
And here's the full results of the survey.
Yes, something is up here. After two years of an unrelentless smear campaign against Joe Lieberman, the truth about his rock-solid Democratic record, his integrity, and the results he's delivered for Connecticut are getting out. I suspect that as more Democrats focus on the facts, and not the distortions coming from the Lieberman-haters, those numbers are only going to continue to rise in these closing days before the primary.
Here's the key passage from Bruin Kid's post (remember this is coming from a Lieberman critic, not a friend):
Last month's ratings showed Lieberman had suffered big drops in support from Democrats and liberals. This month, however, he seems to have recovered. His approvals among both Democrats and liberals are now both back at 50%.
He especially had a HUGE jump of support among liberals. (WTF?) This, BTW, to go from -16% to +7%, is outside the margin of error. So something's up here. And remember, this was way BEFORE Bill Clinton's visit to Connecticut, so that does not explain the jump.
And here's the full results of the survey.
Yes, something is up here. After two years of an unrelentless smear campaign against Joe Lieberman, the truth about his rock-solid Democratic record, his integrity, and the results he's delivered for Connecticut are getting out. I suspect that as more Democrats focus on the facts, and not the distortions coming from the Lieberman-haters, those numbers are only going to continue to rise in these closing days before the primary.
posted by Gotham Ghostwriters at 12:30 PM
77 Comments:
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Yeah, this is great. Maybe people are starting to figure out that the Kos' of the world were smearing the man for nothing. We have to keep up the pressure of these Lhdqsbiberman hater nutjobs.
The Lieberman smear machine has no equal. If you want civility and "reasoned discourse" on this site you will need to stop lying so much yourselves.
Good Day!
The Lamont supporters are their own worst enemies.
What's bad is they have done more damage to Lamont than Lieberman ever could.
so wait, you consider a small rise after a monumental collapse good news?
lieberman has seen his support erode rapidly, his margin in the polls implode and his secure grasp on the office weaken, i wouldn't be too upbeat about a few good numbers.
i don't see the smear campaign you're referring to. we've pointed out the big issues that joe lieberman has sold us out on, the major causes joe lieberman has refused to stand with us on and the moments when we needed him most and he left.
Hey Joe - Remember when Lamont flip-flopped on his Iraq position? Me neither.
I am a registered Democrat and a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan with the 1-102 Infantry Battalion of the Connecticut National Guard. Last week I received some newspaper clippings in the mail that sparked my interest: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has been successfully challenged and forced into a primary that will take place in August.
As some readers may have heard, in January my battalion was issued substandard equipment for our deployment to Afghanistan. Originally, we were issued M-16s rather than M-4 carbines, rifles with shorter barrels and collapsible butt stocks. As a politcally active member of the battalion, I began to get in touch with Representative DeLauro and Representative Simmons, who both responded quickly and enthusiastically. Senator Dodd also responded quickly and gave me prompts on how to further validate my request for weapns.
However, I did not receive a response from Senator Lieberman’s office. I continued to leave messages for both him and his military aide, now senior counselor, Fred Downey, who reprsented Sen. Lieberman at the Battalion’s send off ceremony on Jan. 4. After several messages, I finally received a return phone call. However, I was not met with the same enthusiams expressed by other legislators; I was immediately confronted with an inquisition that seemed to have the purpose of dispelling the belief that the battalion was ill equipped. Rather than listen to our specific concerns, the “benefits” of the M16 were highlighted and teh advantages of the M4 were downplayed.
Lieberman’s office left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion, some who have been on as many as five deployments. The others in Washington were not so quick to abandon us…
Lieberman has never hesitated to voice his support for the war, and recently voted against pulling troops out of Iraq, so where was he when over 500 of his own constituents were being sent overseas to fight on behalf of his great country? It appears the senator was so concerned with climbing the political ladder, he forget what his job is really about: the people…
When my absentee ballot returns to the States next month, Lamont’s name, not Lieberman’s, will bear the check. when August 8 arrives, will you stand for the hypocrisy?
Sincerely,
Colin D. Halloran
The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of the 1-102 Infantry Battalion, CTARNG, the Department of the Army or the members thereof.
always good to see joe sticking up for the people of connecticut.
Joe will win because of his impressive record.
Kos & kooks misinformation campaign is finally being exposed for its lies.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Meanwhile, Civil War Looms In Iraq
The implications are becoming obvious even to Donald Rumsfeld:
Q Is the country closer to a civil war?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is -- there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there's very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it's a -- it's a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I'm not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.
Transcript, July 25, 2006
Compare this to what Rumsfeld was saying in March:
Q What is the difference in your mind between sectarian violence and civil war?
SEC. RUMSFELD: You know, it's a good question, and we have been trying to look for a way to characterize what are the ingredients of a civil war, and how would you know if there was one, and what would it look like, and what might be its progression, either up to increased violence or down to less violence. And it's a hard thing to do, and people are analyzing that and thinking about it. And I think until I've had a chance to think more about it and -- I will say, I don't think it'll look like the United States' civil war.
Transcript, March 14, 2006
Wow, the truth is really settling in with Rumsfeld.
Meanwhile, the word "Iraq" is not even in the Lieberman campaign's vocabulary!
It is time to hold Lieberman and his warmongerers to account
that goody two shoes lamont - running a clean campaign and discussing the war and other issues people actually care about...
who the hell does he think he is?
In the absence of anything else, high-pitched shrieking is sure to impress...
A Trip Down Memory Lane w/Joe
So many memories, but it seems like only yesterday that he was first elected to the Senate. Take a short walk down memory lane and savor everything that our esteemed Senator has accomplished:
YouTube Movie
Sundog,
I refer you to my post entitled "DailyKos attempts a rebuttal" for my views on those who say the Lamont campaign is driven by anti-Semitism. While I think there are probably a few anti-Semites in the Lamont camp, I have always said that the idea that they are driving the Lamont campaign is preposterous.
- Matt
I have also noticed that the screaming harpies here on this site are quite willing to use a DailyKos post as a credible information source.
As long as that post has a PRO-Lieberman viewpoint.
OK, now I get it.
Pointing out that Lieberman claimeed John Dean had "crawled into a spider hole of denial" is obviously a smear tactic.
Pointing out that in the past two weeks Lieberman has claimed the war in Iraq is going just swimmingly is obviously also a "smear job".
Once you realize that this site's authors actually believe this crap, it becomes much easier to understand their undying support for old Joe.
Half a trillion bucks and tens of thousands of dead and maimed Americans? The "Lieberdem's" will happily explain that this is a small price to pay for ensuring that Will and Grace stays out of syndication.
Because really, you've got to have your priorities straight.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Do you think Bill Clinton will help Lieberman as much as he helped Kerry?
Maybe Lieberman needs to campaign with Bush...
yeah - then they could get in a little more "face time"
How much experience in Federal Government did Joe Lieberman have when he first ran for Senator?
Thank you for verifying my point, I appreciate that.
Your premise was based on Federal Government, not State.
Errr, "smear campaign"?
Could you maybe explain why Lieberman's campaign website includes no mention -- not one -- of Iraq?
That tells you all you need to know.
Lieberman lost me when he played the Independent card. Loyal Democrats don't turn their backs on the party like that.
Period.
What? A bounce in Joe's polls and it's not on the front page of Dailykos????? Funny, they had no problem reporting the drop last month. Once again, selective reporting by Mr. Kos. He creates reality on his site and hopes others don't recognize its fictiveness.
Daily Kos is not your problem. The sooner you accept this, the better off you'll be.
I am beginning to understand where the Lieberworld "it's those dirty bloggers" meme comes from.
The Lieberman campaign operatives are on a sinking ship, with a patron (Joe Lieberman) who's a furious, vindictive fellow. They really cannot tell Joe "Sorry, the voters don't like you".
Besides "news" today is really "fake news". Look at that NYT article on Lieberman today. Chock full of lies and disinformation, carrying water for Lieberman mile after mile.
The Lieberdems are the trolls here. They are shrill, insane, and downright paranoid. And don't quote me the Wikipedia. This is a public forum, and Lieberman supporters have every right to cavort here.
Thing is, there just aren't very many of them.
Concern troll Balbari - how nice of you to appear this afternoon!
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
On the media issue, we do not subscribe to *any* magazines, newspapers or television. Many of these "media outlets" have become so ridiculously biased as to be a cruel joke.
Sure there are a few good progressive mags that remain, but we steadfastly avoid anything like the New York Times. Blogs are a better source of information, because they tend to be less biased, not more. You do have to use multiple blogs, but the information is there and they're a better source for what's really going on in the world.
I wonder how Lieberworld would feel about Kos if he were pro-Lieberman?
I'll bet they'd all have a pretty different reading.
I think accountability is also a primary issue. Joe stood up and saluted for this war, and has been a huge cheerleader and enabler as well.
Someone has to be held to account for this disaster. As one of its biggest proponents, Joe has a lot of explaining to do.
However, "Iraq" does not even seem to be in the campaign's vocabulary at the moment.
that just in, from the "Office of Lieberman Wishful Thinking"
The problem with that whole tirade is the portrayal of DailyKos as a "leftist blog".
It is no such thing. It is a *centrist democrat blog*, because it accomodates democrats from across the spectrum, just like the Democratic Party itself USED TO.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Sundog,
I would just point out that many people have tried to hang everything Alberto Gonzales and John Roberts have ever said or done around Lieberman's neck. And all he did was vote to confirm them - not ask them to come campaign for him.
I'm not saying I think that it's fair game to hang Kos completely around Lamont's neck. I'm just saying I think that mentality has to cut both ways. I don't know that you've ever made statements like that, I'm just pointing out that I don't think that humphrey's statements are any more unfair than that stuff which was hurled at Lieberman.
Chafee is obviously a liberal at heart. But his family is the most prominent GOP family in Rhode Island history. So he's not switching parties.
I just wanted to say that I'm really, really happy to see the discourse going on in the comments section here today. Particular shoutouts go to Ken and Sundog, and major honorary mention to humphreyliberal for his one post.
It's turned into a really well-reasoned and logical debate, with both sides making good points. That's good for democracy, and it makes me smile to see it.
Thanks,
Matt
There He Goes Again
Who could possibly argue that John Bolton is the wrong man for Ambassador to the UN?
Well, apparently it's "Principles Lieberman", sitting on the fence, biding his time, trying to figure out how to exploit the situation for maximum personal gain:
"So far no Republicans except Voinovich have said they will vote against Bolton and several Democrats are considering supporting him.
“Senator Lieberman remains undecided about Mr. Bolton’s nomination,'’ said spokesman Matt Gobush. “As a general rule, he believes the president should have the latitude to choose his own Cabinet, except in the most extraordinary cases. The senator is studying the issues raised by the committee to determine whether this is one of those cases.'’
Lieberman voted for Bolton at his previous confirmation hearing in 2001.”
Ouch.
Has anyone noticed the presence of more real debate over the past day or so, ever since a certain someone stopped making posts?
Although that last Anon post looked suspiciously similar to the work of our "old friend"...
Arrgh, it's me Sundog, posting from home and forgot my Blogger pw...
Centristdem - Fair enough, sir.
Puzzling: Are you honestly comparing support from Kos to support from the KKK? I'm afraid I have no answer to something that off-the-wall. I would very much like to see this Kos post that in your eyes is comparable to KKK propaganda.
Thank you very much, Lieberdem. I hoped while hereto show that Lamont supporters are not all crazed loudmouths. I very much hope I've made that case. If not, it is my own shortcoming, not Ned Lamont's.
I just wish the debate was about ISSUES. That would be so much more productive, and so much less divisive. This is not about blogs; it's about issues.
Okay, I give up. These guys really do sound just like republicans.
Because they're talking about issues???
We'll discuss this later - but I am still astonished at the number of people that are shocked and horrified at the "unseemly" behavior of Kossacks, whom Lamont has no control over, and yet seem incapable of recognizing the incredible stream of negativity coming from Lieberman's actual campaign.
Not counting Lieberdem himself - he seems to get this.
We'll chat later. Thanks, those of you who cose to have a stimulating, low-impact discussion, for the stimulating, low-impact discussion.
Sundog
Ok, that was pretty good. Not on-topic, but at least positive in tone.
Since when has L4L ever been on topic?
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
"Yeah, that worked out well....."
That is brilliant :)...
(I will NOT say "while your grandfather was busting dirtclods in Iowa...")
Sundog
I am a registered Democrat and a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan with the 1-102 Infantry Battalion of the Connecticut National Guard. Last week I received some newspaper clippings in the mail that sparked my interest: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has been successfully challenged and forced into a primary that will take place in August.
As some readers may have heard, in January my battalion was issued substandard equipment for our deployment to Afghanistan. Originally, we were issued M-16s rather than M-4 carbines, rifles with shorter barrels and collapsible butt stocks. As a politcally active member of the battalion, I began to get in touch with Representative DeLauro and Representative Simmons, who both responded quickly and enthusiastically. Senator Dodd also responded quickly and gave me prompts on how to further validate my request for weapns.
However, I did not receive a response from Senator Lieberman’s office. I continued to leave messages for both him and his military aide, now senior counselor, Fred Downey, who reprsented Sen. Lieberman at the Battalion’s send off ceremony on Jan. 4. After several messages, I finally received a return phone call. However, I was not met with the same enthusiams expressed by other legislators; I was immediately confronted with an inquisition that seemed to have the purpose of dispelling the belief that the battalion was ill equipped. Rather than listen to our specific concerns, the “benefits” of the M16 were highlighted and teh advantages of the M4 were downplayed.
Lieberman’s office left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion, some who have been on as many as five deployments. The others in Washington were not so quick to abandon us…
Lieberman has never hesitated to voice his support for the war, and recently voted against pulling troops out of Iraq, so where was he when over 500 of his own constituents were being sent overseas to fight on behalf of his great country? It appears the senator was so concerned with climbing the political ladder, he forget what his job is really about: the people…
When my absentee ballot returns to the States next month, Lamont’s name, not Lieberman’s, will bear the check. when August 8 arrives, will you stand for the hypocrisy?
Sincerely,
Colin D. Halloran
The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of the 1-102 Infantry Battalion, CTARNG, the Department of the Army or the members thereof
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
It's not a lie. He never says the courts have ruled those specific laws to be unconstitutional, just that similar laws have been ruled unconstitutional in the past.
Don't hold LieberDem responsible for the fact that you leap to conclusions.
"The courts have ruled repeatedly that the government can't force religious institutions to do things that go against their religious beliefs, as that would violate the First Amendment. I strongly disagree with any religious doctrine that prohibits the use of EC, but the government simply does not have the Constitutional right to force them to reject even that ridiculous belief. And from a purely practical standpoint, de-funding hospitals which will not give out EC for religious reasons could have a catastrophic effect on emergency care and health care in general across the country, since so many hospitals are run by religious institutions.
Right or wrong, that's the reality of constitutional law on the matter. I'll grant that the courts have not, to my knowledge, ruled on these EC laws in particular, but the legal history of the broader issue of government directives being forced upon religious institutions is pretty long."
Tell me how that's 100% inaccurate, oh brilliant constitutional scholar y.g. brown.
Courant Gets It! Lieberman Dodging Iraq
Lieberman is dodging the subject of Iraq, as well as others in this election year. Joe has scaled back on public acknowledgment of his pro-Bush agenda:
"But he's also been capable of giving Democratic leadership fits with his public pronouncements, and that's changed this year. He has not been as free with his praise for Bush policies and volunteers little about his views on Iraq."
De-emphasizing Iraq:
"Since January, when it became apparent that Lieberman was likely to face a primary challenge over his support for the war in Iraq, the senator has mentioned Iraq in 11 press releases, op-ed articles or other public statements archived by his office. About half of them expressed support for or confidence in the war effort or the troops.
In the same period of 2005, his office put out 26 statements mentioning Iraq; again, about half supported the war or the troops.
When he has spoken about Iraq this year, his statements have tended to be more measured and reserved than they were last year."
Link to Courant Article:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-joe0728.artjul28,0,7283800.story?page=1&coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking
L4L said "What Lieberman and his people do is to treat constituents - and even our troops - like petulant children."
You have just hit the nail on the head. I guess lucidity can come from strange places.
Even I don't deny that Lieberman's campaign does that. I think Lieberman is personally an honest, caring person. But his campaign and office staff just seem to not get it at all (thus the shittiest ad campaign of this election cycle).
It honestly kinda reminds me of the Gore '00 team. They just never figured out how to handle anything until October.
I don't buy into the "Lieberman is actully a nice guy" meme either. During the debate, he was arrogant, sanctimonious, hot-headed and rude. Interrupting Lamont every which way and being just plain petty and mean. Campaign chatter from Lieberman since has repeatedly shown that he takes a condescending and dim view of voters.
While people here claim that Lieberman technically "won the debate"; and he may have, his image as a "reasoned statesman" went out the window that night.
I think you're assuming that more than a couple thousand people in CT and more than 10-20 thousand people nationalwide saw that debate. I think that Lieberman's demeanor in that debate is forgotten by pretty much everyone who did not see the debate and is not reading anti-Lieberman blogs. The press only mentioned it briefly in their debate coverage, and not at all since.
The myth that Joe Lieberman is a well-liked nice guy is just that - a myth.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
L4L - did you even bother to notice that there was a good back and forth debate while you were gone?
Seriously, the discussions between Sundog and Ken (with one or two interjections of my own) were reasonable, thoughtful, and fair. Why don't you take a cue from that and make posts that acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument, both of which have merits, and then explain without name-calling why your position should be preferred? Why instead copy and paste excerpts of or links to articles with points that favor your side of the argument along with an even more one-sided analysis of them?
I just don't get why you're so dead set on not participating in a rational discussion of the issues rather than a name-calling fest. If you can't, then maybe you and seedfreak should just go off into a room alone together and have it out.
Benedict Lieberman indeed.
In case you missed it, even DailyKos has said that Lieberman is not a Republican:
http://www.dailykos.net/archives/003636.html
True, that was three years ago. But Lieberman's vote ratings have not gotten any less progressive since then, if you look at the posts on this blog:
http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/truth-about-liebermans-voting-record.html
http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/real-clear-record-on-abortiongay.html
His record is slightly to right of the median for the Democratic caucus, in line with accepted progressives like Daniel Inouye and Maria Cantwell. And that is WITH Iraq War votes included; take those away, and his record is comparably progressive to Carl Levin and Chris Dodd.
No point in continuing to spread the myth that Lieberman is the Republican. Any objective overview of his voting record proves that he is in the Democratic mainstream
Well, I'm glad you cut down on the name-calling. But notice that there was no name-calling at all in the debate yesterday.
Of course you think the LieberDems came off worse - you disagree with them. But I think both sides came out of it looking good. Both showed that there were facts "on their side," and acknowledged as much. It was refreshing.
CentristDem said:
No point in continuing to spread the myth that Lieberman is the Republican. Any objective overview of his voting record proves that he is in the Democratic mainstream.
Fair point, but it overlooks two things:
1. Joe Lieberman in recent years has a voting record similar to Lincoln Chafee (and other Northeast moderate Republicans). Why would you want to remove Lincoln Chafee (and other Republican moderates) but keep Joe Lieberman?
2. If Joe Lieberman is such a "mainstream" Democrat and isn't that close to Republicans on their views, then why run as an independent? If he's such a "mainstream" Democrat, why would Connecticut Republicans vote for him? What could a "mainstream" Democrat like Joe Lieberman gain from competing against a Republican for Republican voters?
I would argue that Lieberman's record is closer to Chris Dodd's than even Linc Chafee's - and Chafee is the most liberal GOPer in Washington.
And if that's not enough reason to work for Lieberman and against Chafee, then remember the most important element of all - Chafee will vote for GOP control of the Senate by caucusing the the GOP, and Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats.
As for why he chose to run as an independent (which I don't think he should), the answer is simple - his appeal and support among unaffiliated voters is stronger than with EITHER party. And unaffiliated voters are the largest bloc in CT. Lieberman might be a bit to the right of the (relative) handful of CT Dems who show up on primary day, but it's certainly not to the right of the states hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated voters.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Ooooh. Nice touch, Ken.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
First off, Dan didn't write that - Matt did. Not sure how you kept missing that.
Second, it's ridiculous to accuse someone who is making a sound legal argument of lying just because you disagree with him! You still seem to have completely missed the point on this. LieberDem acknowledged that the courts had not yet ruled on these laws, but only said that courts had in the past ruled in favor of religious institutions in similar cases. Higher education comes to mind - many religious universities have received federal financial aid funds and other grant funding in the past despite federal laws which conflict universities' policies. Villanova, for instance, forbids its students from working for pro-choice organizations. That policy was challenged in court, and the school prevailed because the court ruled that Villanova did not qualify as a state actor. I don't have time to explain the legal definition of a state actor, but courts have repeatedly ruled that religious-run institutions are almost never considered state actors.
He never said these laws have been specifically ruled unconstitutional, and his broader argument is not only not a lie, it's the generally-accepted legal precedent. Sorry.
I'm sorry, but do you just not read? I GAVE you one above - the case against Villanova University - A CATHOLIC SCHOOL.
Read or at least pretend to read before you make your inane comments.
Oh, and one more thing - no matter how you spin it, it was not a lie. You just don't like facing up to the fact that there is considerable legal evidence on his side. I took a class on law and education, and can remember several cases that relate to this, but I don't have the book in front of me at the moment - sorry. The Villanova case sticks out because a friend of mine went there for law school.
In any case, it's not a lie. And you frankly sound like an immature clot for screaming that it is.
And you are an arrogant prick who obviously lacks the intelligence to even attempt a civilized debate, so he just calls whoever disagrees with him a "liar" - as if anyone actually respects your opinion enough to listen to you.
But go ahead. There's a reason there hasn't been one other soul on this blog backing you up. And it's because no one likes arrogant pricks with nothing constructive to say.
Oh, and by the way. I went to law school, have a J.D., and worked as a constitutional law professor for two years - so my class on law and education was just some isolated incident of me "volunteering to enroll in a university," whatever that means.
And if you think that the Villanova case has "nothing to do with the case at hand," then you obviously lack the understanding of constitutional law necessary to make claims you pathetically put forward. So go crawl back to Kos and hope he has respect for the legal opinions of people who obviously know nothing about law.
And you should be ashamed for failing to explain how linking to one case overrides 200 years of jurisprudence on the relationship between religious institutions and the government.
And if you mock someone and call them a liar but don't expect them to have an equally negative response, then your people skills are even more divorced from reality than your sense of legal history.
You again cite the fact that the laws haven't been overturned as somehow proof that they won't be. They are all young laws, having been on the books less than 5 years. Laws mandating segregation are still on the books in Alabama after over a century, because they were never specifically overturned by a federal court. Does that mean they are still constitutional?
Laws on the books don't decide legal precedent. Court cases do. So one CA Supreme Court decision that was never reviewed by a federal court and a handful of laws that have been on the books for less than 5 years don't overturn 200 years of the federal legal precedent that the government cannot force religious institutions to do things that go against their religious beliefs. The most relevant precedents are in higher education, since the laws relating to hospitals are very new in judicial terms.
I agree with the laws, and strongly disagree with James Dobson's opinion on them. But my opinion doesn't change the judicial precedent on the meaning of the free exercise clause, and neither does yours. Sorry that you can't seem to understand that.
Read this first, then maybe you will at least start to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=483&invol=327
You haven't cited a single federal case to back up your arguments, and federal cases are all that matter on abortion law and on first amendnent issues. The legal precedent on the matter was laid out in the first link. And maybe you're illiterate in general and not just in law, but you apparently missed the whole "I agree that EC should be required" part of my argument when you called me Ralph Reed. But your arrogance won't let you see that there is a difference between what IS the legal precedent and what you THINK the legal precedent should be.
Until you stop preaching from on high and acknowledge that there is not one federal case to back up your argument, you're not worth talking to.
<< Home