More valid. At least she's in the same political faction as the shooter.

Where in that did I say who I was voting for?

Vote for Newt, and the next Dem can just decide when it doesn't like the court's decisions.

Paul sucking does not make Newt a good choice.

Please tell me this was satire. Obama is in office, and you want to increase the power of the executive? Brilliant.

Yes. And if you don't, imagine what Obama would do with those powers and get back to me.

So your solution to that is concentrating even more power in the executive? Brilliant.

"While many believe that a Supreme Court justice, with a lifelong appointment, will rule on legislation based on its constitutionality, an unchecked Supreme Court could impose its will on the country against the will of the people."

That's the point, you half-wit. They were given lifetime appointments so that they would rule based on the law, not the mob.

Harvard business may be non-ideological, but Harvard law may as well be a liberal think-tank. I have no doubts that Romney is able to synthesize vast amounts of data. It's too bad he's only using that ability to look at polls and tell people what they want to hear.

I'm not an ideological Republican, but I would like to have some idea why my candidate will do if I vote for him, and with Mitt I have no idea. Based on his record in Mass., I'm fairly certain he will do whatever is politically expedient to advance his career, and we've already had about 20 years of that driving up debt.

That's not desensitizing, that's advertising.

We're not alcoholics, alcoholics go to meetings. We're drunks.