<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>The Washington Independent - Latest Comments in Judicial Partisanship Awards</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 22:07:17 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Judicial Partisanship Awards</title><link>http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards#comment-9871495</link><description>BULL CRAP</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ds</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 22:07:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Judicial Partisanship Awards</title><link>http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards#comment-9018589</link><description>Interesting, indeed, but probably not surprising.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">KYJurisDoctor</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 13:30:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Judicial Partisanship Awards</title><link>http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards#comment-2293897</link><description>The WSJ posted a guest opinion arguing that (non-conservative) judges have been activists.  I tried to point out that the opinion lacked a factual basis and cited this page, twice.  It has not been posted by the moderators yet.  WSJ reserves the right to not post links to web sites with "objectionable conduct."  Maybe that includes opposing views?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;see &lt;a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108996856421421.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108996856421...&lt;/a&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">serf</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:58:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Judicial Partisanship Awards</title><link>http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards#comment-1790968</link><description>While I am sure there is substance in you post, I can't concentrate on it as I seethe at your call for turning a cheek to the criminal and in my mind treasonous behavior of the Bush regime.  To do nothing is to put your imprimatur on their misdeeds.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">moondancer</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:08:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Judicial Partisanship Awards</title><link>http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards#comment-1790969</link><description>Getting back to the article and point of the extensive research, I thought it was well done. No matter what your other views, the statistics appear overwhelming.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">calljohnpeterson</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:56:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Judicial Partisanship Awards</title><link>http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards#comment-1790970</link><description>Funny how the well known fascists John (the enforcer) Roberts and Sammy (the coat-hanger) Alito both Smirky appointees were left off the list because they would skew the results toward a more honest article so I'm not surprised by the conclusion. I am surprised that Sunstein could get this nonsense published!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">uncleernie</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:38:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Judicial Partisanship Awards</title><link>http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards#comment-1790971</link><description>Sunstein's cautious approach towards doing ANYTHING about the most criminal administration in modern American history is truly troubling and makes anything he publishes suspect.  He, like the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, seems prone to look the other way while the Imperial Presidency of George the Lessor ignores the laws and shreds the Constitution.  We can be assured that the powers that run this country aren't loosing any sleep worrying about an Obama Presidency with someone like Sunstein as a close advisor.  Look forward to more of the same old sh*t.  Their campaign slogan should be "Change we can just dream about".</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">johnbo</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:52:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Judicial Partisanship Awards</title><link>http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards#comment-1790972</link><description>Dr. Sunstein, while I appreciate the work done here, I am more concerned about your other work, specifically that endorsing expansive views of surveillance and torture of detainees.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Additionally, I think that your comments which seem to suggest that lawbreaking by Bush administration officials should be swept under the rug to the maximum degree possible are very troubling.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">msaroff</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:09:02 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>