Tom Garrett

Tom Garrett 3 hours, 17 minutes ago on 807 Finally! The real reason for all the flack over Merrick Garland's confirmation.

I thought I would bring this string forward again so that all of you could see that parallel between it and string 828.

During the discussions on this string I deliberately did not mention the comments made by some of the Supreme Court justices on the issue because I just really wanted everyone to see the logic behind 4-4 decisions, which always essentially go against the person trying to get some change. But maybe this is a good place to insert some of those comments so that you can see that the "reasoning" in some of them is sometimes not legal reasoning at all. That's shocking because that's what it should be, right?

Here you go:

  • Justice Kennedy said, "It's as if the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it. That's just upside down."

  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the "basic problem" is that the government lacks the resources to deport everyone in the country illegally, meaning it must set priorities. And she added, "There are these people who are here to stay, no matter what."

  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized Texas' argument about the economic harm caused by Obama's action, saying millions of immigrants "are here in the shadows" and will affect the economy "whether we want (them) to or not."

Sorry, folks, those are the only comments in the article I read. It isn't always easy to find such comments quoted. Right now I don't have time to dig out any more, but if I find time I'll do it. In the meantime if anyone has the time to dig out more quotes (on this case please) I'm sure everyone would appreciate it. Thanks.


Tom Garrett 3 hours, 38 minutes ago on 814 A headline with a lot of meaning in it.

It never fails to astound me that we can sit quietly on a ship which is headed directly for the rocks an do nothing whatsoever to steer it just a wee bit to one side or another. I wonder that someone who is — say — 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, or 40 has to say about the fact that the end is fast approaching and he or she will have to live through it?

Oh, well. Not my problem. I'll be long gone.


Tom Garrett 3 hours, 43 minutes ago on Cake Auction

Good for you, Pat. Most people have a hard time losing weight.

I drink milk, by the way, but it's lactose free. A lot of ex-gi's are lactose intolerant, by the way. We all begin life perfectly capable of digesting milk, of course, and if we go on having milk and milk by-products we usually have no problem with them. But there's a small change that occurs in or bodies after we mature that will shut down the production of lactase, which is the enzyme which digests milk, if we spend a period of time not drinking it. If you go to a place like Iceland, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, or many others where virtually no milk is available you can plan on becoming lactose intolerant. In Japan, by the way, they shudder over the thought of eating cheese; they look upon it as rotten milk, which I suppose it is.


Tom Garrett 3 hours, 51 minutes ago on 828 An excellent reason for not approving an Obama chosen supreme court justice.

"When the Supreme Court is tied, the verdict goes to the defendant."

You're forgetting one thing. Or maybe you just didn't know it. I probably should have put it in my first post. In one of his last official acts before his untimely death in February, Justice Scalia joined the Supreme Court’s other four conservative justices in issuing a virtually unprecedented stay of the Obama Administration’s so-called “Clean Power Plan.” The stay effectively puts the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the burdensome set of regulations on hold until the litigation is resolved. Unless the Obama administration can WIN, the stay remains in effect.

"Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland, is a Centrist."

Sorry, not on this issue.

"...rather than Clinton's nominee next year, assuming she wins."

I haven't said a word about the election, and don't plan on saying one, but I sincerely do not think that any Democrat has a chance of even coming close in this election. And please don't forget that (a) that's an opinion, and (b) it comes form a lifelong Independent who has voted Democratic most of the time.

"WHO has a "reason to believe"

Well me, for one. I get email from the White House every day and routinely delete them after I read them. Before that plan went into effect I read one talking about it. Unless I am going to comment on them immediately those emails just get trashed. Sorry. Anyway, what's the difference? You don't really think that the EPA would dare to put something that sweeping into effect without first running it across the boss's desk, do you? Come on! Try something like that in Washington no matter who sits in the oval office and you'd be out on the street in ten minutes. :-)

"Eventually all those "new regulations" supposedly in the "Clean Power Plan" will be tested within our Court system..."

Only if someone can get the stay removed. That takes a win, and that's the point.

On the other hand I sure as hey agree with you on the court system and the waste of money. I guess it would help if (a) Congress passed the laws, and (b) the White House would quit exercising kingly powers it doesn't have. (Please notice how nice I was in that last sentence by using the term White House.) :-)

Incidentally, you all might be interested to know that even the Bible contains that same use of a place instead of a person. I'm a Archeology buff, especially on Egypt, and know that there is no such word as Pharaoh in ancient Egyptian. The term used in all ancient writings is simply "king." PER-0, which the ancient scholar who wrote that part of the Bible translated from Egyptian means "great house." Interesting analogy, no?

Thanks, Don.

I know you all know this, but it would be nice if presidents quit nominating partisans, wouldn't it?


Tom Garrett 4 hours, 25 minutes ago on 826 Who will win this lawsuit?

But, Chuck, here's a case in point. The kid has not only been questioned, he's been tried and convicted. Reason? There is no legal penalty for not observing Miranda, just the ability to appeal.

Until we put teeth in laws like that they are useless, wouldn't you agree?

It's the same as charging a corporation with something; since there is no person changed with anything the people running corporations will continue to do what they do, pocketing the profits and just laughing as they let the people who invested their money in the corporations pay the fines. and the people who were screwed have no satisfaction other than to see someone who has done nothing wrong paying a fine so that the corporate executives who actual broke the law get richer.

In order to be effective there has to be a penalty applied to the lawbreaker.


Tom Garrett 1 day, 3 hours ago on 814 A headline with a lot of meaning in it.

"Seems to me that is precisely the mentality...."

Ron, the opposite of that is just sitting and doing nothing. That isn't what government is for; it's for us to try our best to avoid problems where and when it is necessary. Of course, the word "necessary" is the critical part of that sentence. It is not, for example, necessary for the government to tell us how much sugar we can have in a soft drink, but I believe it is necessary for the government to facilitate solution to world class problems. The problem isn't what we do; it's whether or not it is done to sell votes.

"The Kingdom does not have a deficit due to lack of oil. They have a deficit due to an over supply on the world market coupled with very generous payments to citizens to stop an all out revolt."

I'll ignore the last part of that, not because it may not be so, but because it is outside the discussion and may take us away from the real problem. I'll focus only on oil. Here are the facts regarding oil supply. Research shows that we have already used about half of all the oil that exists. And depending, of course, on what the consumption rate may be the end of the oil supply can be fairly accurately predicted. At our current rate our oil reserves would probably be completely gone in about 35 years. Looking backward, 35 years ago was 1980; that doesn't seem like a very long time to me, so I see this as a world crisis which must be addressed by logical steps BEFORE any catastrophe strikes us. Doesn't that make sense? Talking about why we shouldn't try to prevent such a catastrophe seems like a total waste of breath.

Mike et al,

"A responsible government would focus energy and resources on something we actually can control..."

I would end that sentence with "politics and unproven science." Like this: Responsible government would focus energy and resources on something we actually can control, not politics and unproven science."

We have half the people in government doing that, and the other half focusing on grabbing as much money as they can. That sure as hey isn't what we need!

Thanks, Ron. One disaster at a time.

Man! Am I glad I'll be dead when the s--t hits the fan! And doubly glad I have left no grandchildren to suffer and die through it.


Tom Garrett 1 day, 3 hours ago on 826 Who will win this lawsuit?

Forgot to ask you all a question:

Would you like to see this go through all the appeals and get to the Supreme Court so that there would b a definite precedent set on it. Do you think it would eliminate some problems we have now, or not? I ask that because since cops are asking questions without observing Miranda, do you think a new precedent would actually help, or do wee something more drastic, such a legal action against anyone who ignores the right to remain silent? In other words, how do you feel about the whole ball of wax?


Tom Garrett 1 day, 3 hours ago on 834 New law will eliminate short-term rental bans.

A few local governments — Fountain Hills, Jerome, and Sedona, for example — have passed ordinances which ban short-term rentals of private homes. Sedona even goes so far as to make the penalty for doing it as much as $2500 and six months in jail.

It seems odd that small Arizona towns are emulating something usually found only in large cities like New York and New Orleans, where hotels rentals reached such incredible levels that some home owners decided they could make a living renting out second homes, or homes they were not occupying at the moment. Those cities, and several others have banned the practice in response to political pressure from hotels and motels.

Here in Arizona cities like Phoenix, Tucson, Scottsdale and others actively seek short terms rentals. They are good for business and let homeowners who are not currently using their homes to rent them out for short terms. "Short term," by the way usually means under 30 days.

The bill will also allow websites that advertise short rentals to collect taxes on the retails on behalf of renters and turn them over to the state, which is fair and proper, so It looks like any such bans here in Arizona will soon be a thing of the past. A bill preventing local governments from preventing such rentals was entered in the House, has been passed by the Senate, and is on its way to the governor.

The Question Is....

How do you feel about it?