<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rehnquist</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.complich8.net/archives/113/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.complich8.net/archives/113</link>
	<description>complacence is the enemy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:22:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: the Pat</title>
		<link>http://www.complich8.net/archives/113/comment-page-1#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>the Pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:40:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/blog/?p=113#comment-20</guid>
		<description>At least the majority of judges, whether conservative or liberal, when they get to the Supreme Court are basically in a position to uphold the law and not stray too far from what&#039;s already been decided.

There was an interesting talk on NPR a week ago about supreme court justices.  Basically there was a precedent set in the 40s that basically said that the Supreme Court couldn&#039;t change the law around dramatically unless a) the facts changed, b) public opinion is overwhelmingly for or against a measure that wasn&#039;t in there before or c) the law is obsolete.  With this in mind, many of the controversial rulings in the past will probably not change, like Roe v. Wade or the Scopes Monkey Trial results.  

So ... it&#039;s not as bad as it seems, but I still don&#039;t like a conservative leaning government in totality.  Not good amigo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At least the majority of judges, whether conservative or liberal, when they get to the Supreme Court are basically in a position to uphold the law and not stray too far from what&#8217;s already been decided.</p>
<p>There was an interesting talk on NPR a week ago about supreme court justices.  Basically there was a precedent set in the 40s that basically said that the Supreme Court couldn&#8217;t change the law around dramatically unless a) the facts changed, b) public opinion is overwhelmingly for or against a measure that wasn&#8217;t in there before or c) the law is obsolete.  With this in mind, many of the controversial rulings in the past will probably not change, like Roe v. Wade or the Scopes Monkey Trial results.  </p>
<p>So &#8230; it&#8217;s not as bad as it seems, but I still don&#8217;t like a conservative leaning government in totality.  Not good amigo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

