Sixty percent of voters believe the justices on the US Supreme Court have their own political agendas, according to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll. Only 23 percent of participants think the Court's members are impartial.

Presidential candidates seem to agree that the Supreme Court is political. John McCain said that the dangerous decision to grant Guantanamo Bay detainees habeas corpus stressed the importance of electing him to appoint conservative judges. Barack Obama argued the exact opposite — that the fragile majority must be protected.

While it's impossible to expect any person to be completely impartial, the notion of a political agenda implies that (at least internally) articulated policy goals would primarily inform how a justice decides a case. In other words, an agenda suggests that justices would put political interest, before legal principles. It seems bothersome if undemocratically elected and lifetime appointed government officials are motivated by politics. And don't forget — you don't have to be an "activist judge" to have an agenda; strict construction furthers somebody's policy goals, too.

Do you think there's a difference between being subjective and having a political agenda? Do you care if justices, who are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, are political?

Do you think the Supreme Court justices sit on the bench with political agendas?

Source

Barack and Michelle Obama are telling the American people what they want to know: how they fell in love. Six pages of the newest issue of Us Weekly, will explore their romance and feature the Obama family photo album. Michelle's message: I'm your typical American mom. Perhaps Americans want to see a softer side in their first lady. And as far as campaign strategy goes — Us Weekly may not be The Atlantic, but it sure attracts a lot of eyes at grocery stores.

As part of her mission to meet America, Michelle also co-hosted The View this morning. She looked vibrant and at ease, as she asked for a fist bump from all the ladies. Michelle also managed to ask guest Matthew Broderick what motivated his 5-year-old son to endorse her husband.

Will you pick up the Obama issue that hits newsstands nationwide Friday? Are these lighter and more human appeals a breath of fresh air during a tough political season; or would you like to stick to the issues and the candidates? I look forward to seeing John and Cindy McCain on the next issue of Life&Style.

To see the video of The View entrance read more

Despite backbreaking teamwork to sandbag the riverbanks, the Mississippi River broke through an Illinois levee forcing nearly half a dozen people to be rescued by helicopter. However, because the federal government learned from a 1993 flood in the same area and planned for a repeat, the damage could have actually been much worse.

After the 1993 Mississippi flood, President Clinton purchased much of the low-lying land buying out more than 9,000 homeowners. The land was turned into parks and underdeveloped areas creating much less of a risk when the next flood — like this one — occurred.
The buyout plan moved whole communities including Rhineland, MO and Valmeyer, IL. FEMA also spent $1.6 million to move the resident of Elkport (whose population then numbered 80) and razed the remaining buildings. The ones who remained are paying the price today as their town is now completely inundated with water.

The National Weather Service predicts crests in the next few days along the Mississippi River near St. Louis to approach those 1993 levels. In Canton, MO, the river might reach 27.7 feet high, more than 13 feet above the flood stage.

Though 1993 preparations controlled some damage, area residents are still hurting. Reports of raw sewage and farm runoff in floodwaters raise concerns about public health, and some long-time river dwellers are calling it quits. One woman who's 83, said, "I'm not going back after this one." It was the third time she'd been flooded out of her home since 1965.

Given the sheer number of recent weather-related disasters, is emergency response after the fact enough? Do we need more planning like the 1993 buyout to minimize disaster's affect?

Souce

Summertime in an election year means convention cities are stocking up on confetti, balloons, and. . . pepper guns? Denver police hoping to prepare against disorder are stocking up on guns that fire a peppery powder instead of bullets in case they need to disperse crowds at the Democratic National Convention.

The department recently ordered 88 Mark IV launchers and projectiles at a cost "in the low six figures," spending a mere portion of the $50 million federal security grant. The hushed details of the budgeting have the American Civil Liberties Union filing a civil lawsuit alleging the city is violating the Colorado Open Records Act.

Denver authorities say releasing the information is "contrary to the public interest" because it could compromise important tactical information hampering security.

Some organizers of protest groups think police are amassing an arsenal of extended-range tasers and weapons that cripple people with high-intensity sound. The bullet balls ordered up are filled with powder "that's like a combination of cayenne pepper and baby powder" and can incapacitate a person like pepper spray.

Should Denver have to disclose how they're dishing out their security dough — or does that defeat the purpose? Do you expect violence or protests at the conventions?

Source

"If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong." So says John Fredman, then chief counsel to the CIA's counter-terrorism center, explaining in minutes of a 2002 meeting released yesterday, concluding that torture "is basically subject to perception". The minutes were released in conjunction with the Senate Armed Services Committee investigation into the origins of harsh interrogation tactics used on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

In a hearing yesterday that spanned eight hours, US military lawyers revealed details showing how techniques like sensory and sleep deprivation and simulated drowning were modeled on training given soldiers on how to resist questioning. Chairman Carl Levin said that explanation "twisted the law to create the appearance of legality".

Correspondence brought to light in the hearing showed concern about such techniques as far back as 2002 with one quote saying, “if we mistreat detainees, we will quickly lose the [moral] high ground and public support will erode.” Then despite objections by military lawyers, then Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved sensory deprivation, sleep disruption, water-boarding and stress positions. “Officially it is not happening,” Lt. Col. Diane Beaver said in the 2002 information, adding that commanders were concerned that the techniques would be discovered by the Red Cross. To see the White House response, and a new study proving torture, read more