According to the NYTimes Alberto Gonzales himself refered to one of Owens dissenting opinions while they were both on the Texas Supreme Court together as "judicial activism".

LOL!

Oh...it's not even funny anymore.

muckcat, yeah I heard called one of her rulings on abortion, "unconscionable." Maybe its the same ruling. As far as the economy, not only are some saying "soft patch", but they are saying even worse, saying this patch is just getting soggier, and could spell long term trouble. Explain to me again how Republicans are better for business??

From the New York Times editorial page;

There are serious questions about Justice Owen's willingness to enforce the law when it does not match her ideology. In a dissent in a much-discussed abortion case, she wanted to rewrite Texas law to make it harder for minors seeking abortions to bypass the requirement that they notify their parents. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, suggested that Justice Owen's narrow reading of the law was "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

muckcat, ha nice catch. Didnt see the NYTIMES this morning. :).

Steve, I wish I could share your air of optimism but I can't. You seem to be saying that with all of these GOP wins the Dems will be able to show how corrupt they are and this will help the dems to win. I think the bushies are going for it (theocracy, facism whatever) and they are winning. They will do away with the fillibuster, keep Delay, get Bolton, pass their energy corparate welfare bill, and on and on. They are winning and consolidating there power. The dems are losing and are not fighting back - it fact many many dems are supporting these thugs. Things look bleak to me.

The house ethics rules reversal is a setup. The new ethics committee republlicans can't wait to white wash Delay. It follows the 911 commission, Iraq intelligence, Iraq torture and Italian diplomat trend. Do what the hell you want to do and deny any wrong doing. If the questions get too hot, white wash the whole thing.

GDP is over 3% folks, and that includes high energy prices over the winter. Higher energy prices haven't impacted GDP very much.

3.1% isn't a blistering number. We're not going to see pressure on wages or rampant hiring of people. That should keep the Fed from slamming on the brakes, and keep this expansion cycle moving forward.

As you know, energy prices play less of a roll during the spring as moderate temperatures ease energy expenditures. But, it's not a big impact on GDP anyways.

As insightful as Steve's comments always are, I think Steve needs to read the next post by eriposte for a dose of pessimism.

Explain to me again how Republicans are better for business??

$1 trillion in corporate welfare this year. No legal accountability for the acts they perpetrate that damage the environment or kill people. That's "better" isn't it?

Ahmed Chalabi -Iraq Oil Minister ! It has a nice ring to it, wouldn't you say?

Weren't there two major ethics rules changes. They only backed off one of those changes. The other was an ethics rules requiring any Representative holding House leadership titles to step down fro mthose duties should they be under indictment. Talk up the "retreat" on one rule change and the press forgets about the other.

If, in fact, they are back to the "old rules," I don't believe the GOP committee members can perform a whitewash. I haven't had time to look up the specifics, but I think that a party-line split under the old rules meant an investigation.

Too bad for Pelosi. She fell right into the GOP trap. Hastert said he'll back off. Pelosi says no dice until you change the staffing chages. Well, turns out Pelosi had 12 trips by staffers come under scrutiny if they go back to the 'old rules". you dems are crafty, but not crafty enought. Looks like she got caught with her panties around her ankles!

Uh oh!

Who's responsible for letting this one slip through?

Some heads are gonna roll somewhere.

Maybe Bush will get a question about it tonight.

Wow, great catch muckcat- eriposte? Steve? Can someone post this on the main page please? Or at least an open thread link? For the sake of our children and our children's children, we need to do something about this now.

Matt,

I hope you are right.

I don't believe Hastert would have done this without a Rove plan in place. They can now hear some trivial DeLay charges and find them without merit, or, more likely, expose some obscure Dem Reps transgressions and go full tilt into an investigation, with the Dems helpless to stop it. OR, could this is be a grand plan by Rove to dump DeLay well before the 06 elections. I don't buy that one because DeLay represents the whole deck of cards for the GOP.....once he goes......
There could be one other tack..Hastert and the GOP House have had their fill of Bush/Rove and are cutting the umbillical??? doubt it.

For the sake of our children and our children's children, we need to do something about this now.

Maybe this is why Bush is going to propose more nuclear power plants during his speech tonight. That'd be a great way to stop global warming dead in its tracks!

That'd be a great way to stop global warming dead in its tracks!

Well it won't stop dead in it's tracks. There's a bit of a lag.

I'm with ya' on nuclear muckdog. But it's sort of a seperate issue from oil dependence isn't it?

Kind of like private accounts for Social Security are a seperate issue from it's solvency problem.

Besides, I thought his little chat tonight was about S.S.?

Sorry I'm late on this one . . . This morning I was watching C-SPAN's coverage of the House of Representatives. There, a representative from Florida was pushing through what was being called a "Marshall Plan" rule on waiving the long standing rule that all House members be given three days to review a proposed Act (this time the budget) before voting. The rule waiver being asked for by the Repugnicans would permit the bill to be voted on the same day it came out of the Budget Committee with no bi-partisan review beforehand. After eloquent speeches by many Democrats, a voice vote was called by the House Speaker (don't know his name, but a Rethug 'natch). Clearly, the no's outnumbered the ayes in both voices and volume, but the Speaker declared that "the 'ayes' have it." The Democrat taking the lead then objected, and called for a point of order that there was no quorum and moved for a recorded vote. I had to leave for work before I could see the outcome of that vote, but I thought it was YET ANOTHER OUTRAGE by the Repugnicans. Can you believe their cojones? *Sigh* yes, I can too. That's what scares the ever living sh*t out of me. (:>