<?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: Anthony Kennedy Now Supreme Court Decider</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:13:57 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: just me</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/comment-page-1/#comment-88787</link>
		<dc:creator>just me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/#comment-88787</guid>
		<description>I seem to recall a case where Alito was the swing in a five four decision on the death penalty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I seem to recall a case where Alito was the swing in a five four decision on the death penalty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Herb</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/comment-page-1/#comment-88667</link>
		<dc:creator>Herb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/#comment-88667</guid>
		<description>Michael:

If you &quot;understand the rationale&quot; for this decision, then you are about the only one. Your &quot;understanding&quot; lacks, like the Courts, indicates a total lack of common sense. 

Please tell me a common sense answer to this,

Why should we in the US, recognize a group of terrorist who represent no country, are not a part of any army, wear no uniforms, and themselves did not sign on to the Geneva Convention, and commit outright murder of innocents. 

To do so is complete insanity and the 5 Judges who made the terrorist a part of the Geneva Convention are about as un American as one can get. 

These Judges are an illegitimate group of so called American and fully deserve to be named &quot;The Bastards of America&quot; throughout the country.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael:</p>
<p>If you "understand the rationale" for this decision, then you are about the only one. Your "understanding" lacks, like the Courts, indicates a total lack of common sense. </p>
<p>Please tell me a common sense answer to this,</p>
<p>Why should we in the US, recognize a group of terrorist who represent no country, are not a part of any army, wear no uniforms, and themselves did not sign on to the Geneva Convention, and commit outright murder of innocents. </p>
<p>To do so is complete insanity and the 5 Judges who made the terrorist a part of the Geneva Convention are about as un American as one can get. </p>
<p>These Judges are an illegitimate group of so called American and fully deserve to be named "The Bastards of America" throughout the country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Joyner</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/comment-page-1/#comment-88658</link>
		<dc:creator>James Joyner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2006 19:42:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/#comment-88658</guid>
		<description>DCL:  A legacy of my misspent youth as a cadet at USMA, which at the time required even us math rocks to take a pre-engineering core curriculum.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DCL:  A legacy of my misspent youth as a cadet at USMA, which at the time required even us math rocks to take a pre-engineering core curriculum.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DC Loser</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/comment-page-1/#comment-88647</link>
		<dc:creator>DC Loser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/#comment-88647</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m just impressed James even knows what reverse Polish notation is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'm just impressed James even knows what reverse Polish notation is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/comment-page-1/#comment-88643</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/#comment-88643</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;What I, and every America wants to see is the rationale for these 5 â��Bastards of Americaâ�� making them, Al Qaeda, eligible to the Geneva Convention.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Herb, Perhaps you should only speak for yourself, and not the rest of America.  I, for one, understand the rationale behind the decision, and agree with it.  

The SC did not &quot;make Terrorist a part of the Geneva Convention&quot;, they simply stated that the US is bound by our obligations under that convention.    I don&#039;t see what we lose by abiding by the convention besides a lack of the warm fuzzy feeling you get knowing we&#039;re drowning and electrocuting people.  If we can survive Fascism and Communism while still maintaining our humanity, I don&#039;t see why we should let Islamists take that away.  

We don&#039;t have to be like them to beat them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>What I, and every America wants to see is the rationale for these 5 â��Bastards of Americaâ�� making them, Al Qaeda, eligible to the Geneva Convention.</p></blockquote>
<p>Herb, Perhaps you should only speak for yourself, and not the rest of America.  I, for one, understand the rationale behind the decision, and agree with it.  </p>
<p>The SC did not "make Terrorist a part of the Geneva Convention", they simply stated that the US is bound by our obligations under that convention.    I don't see what we lose by abiding by the convention besides a lack of the warm fuzzy feeling you get knowing we're drowning and electrocuting people.  If we can survive Fascism and Communism while still maintaining our humanity, I don't see why we should let Islamists take that away.  </p>
<p>We don't have to be like them to beat them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: madmatt</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/comment-page-1/#comment-88638</link>
		<dc:creator>madmatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:35:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/#comment-88638</guid>
		<description>I think there were a couple of criminal cases that were rather non political....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think there were a couple of criminal cases that were rather non political....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Herb</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/comment-page-1/#comment-88628</link>
		<dc:creator>Herb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/#comment-88628</guid>
		<description>The role of &quot;decider&quot; should not be in the Kennedy ballpark.

In fact. Kennedy should have been impeached long ago when he &quot;Violated the Law Passed by Congress&quot; and signed by the President in the Schievo Killing Case.

Kennedy Has made himself one of the 5 &quot;Bastards of America&quot; by his decision to make Terrorist a part of the Geneva Convention. 

What I, and every America wants to see is the rationale for these 5 &quot;Bastards of America&quot; making them, Al Qaeda, eligible to the Geneva Convention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The role of "decider" should not be in the Kennedy ballpark.</p>
<p>In fact. Kennedy should have been impeached long ago when he "Violated the Law Passed by Congress" and signed by the President in the Schievo Killing Case.</p>
<p>Kennedy Has made himself one of the 5 "Bastards of America" by his decision to make Terrorist a part of the Geneva Convention. </p>
<p>What I, and every America wants to see is the rationale for these 5 "Bastards of America" making them, Al Qaeda, eligible to the Geneva Convention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wolfwalker</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/comment-page-1/#comment-88626</link>
		<dc:creator>wolfwalker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/anthony_kennedy_now_supreme_court_decider/#comment-88626</guid>
		<description>Perhaps the remaining two cases didn&#039;t divide along the standard liberal/conservative lines?  I seem to recall at least one case like that, where a combination of &quot;conservative&quot; and &quot;liberal&quot; justices made up the five-vote majority, while the dissents were also a mix of &quot;conservatives&quot; and &quot;liberals.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps the remaining two cases didn't divide along the standard liberal/conservative lines?  I seem to recall at least one case like that, where a combination of "conservative" and "liberal" justices made up the five-vote majority, while the dissents were also a mix of "conservatives" and "liberals."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
