Democrat Report | Democrat news, political results, polls, and opinions

Rick Santorum and Dangerous Religious Rhetoric

"But look deeper into the whole meaning of his words, and you’ll see references to the end times, Revelations, and of Obama being the anti-Christ."

Rick Santorum is gaining steam in the Republican race for the nomination and it makes me wonder how he’s doing it. Most liberals and independents I know think the man is completely nuts. It’s absolutely incomprehensible to us as to why he appeals to the conservative base so much, especially to the women, whose entire reproductive futures depend on accessible, affordable health care.

Just the other day, Santorum decried the centralizing of government, declaring that states’ rights should trump federal law. If states wanted to ban or restrict access to birth control, they should have the right to do so. However, just a day or two after he said that, he said that gay marriage should be banned on the federal level.

So, which is it? Does Rick Santorum support states’ rights or federal regulation? He can’t have it both ways just because he doesn’t support certain civil rights and health issues. And his rhetoric…oh! his rhetoric! In Plano, Texas last week, Santorum told a group gathered at a town hall meeting that the president’s war on religion would encourage atheists and other non-Christians to do violence against Christians. He said what would happen if conservative, family-values believers allowed such things as abortion, birth control, gay marriage, et al. to continue, we’d see a ‘French Revolution’ type uprising of the government executing Christians.

Really? At first blush Democrats and progressives were scratching their heads in confusion. The French Revolution was the result of widespread, massive poverty among the masses due to failed crops. The rich and powerful didn’t care, and basically said, “Let them eat cake,” while feasting on caviar. So the poor, who had absolutely nothing left to lose, revolted, and many of those same wealthy people who’d scorned them ended up with their heads sliced off by a guillotine.

This is what Rick Santorum is saying the government will do to the masses if we stay on this liberal, godless path.

But look deeper into the whole meaning of his words, and you’ll see references to the end times, Revelations, and of Obama being the anti-Christ.

Have a look at what the GOP hopeful said versus what you’ll find in the Bible:

Rick Santorum: “They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that. But if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”

And

The Bible: “Judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands.”

He’s using fear and religion to stir up the conservative base, hoping they’ll buy into it. So far, many of them are. But while we can laugh it all off as being the rantings of a crazy man, President Obama would be wise to continue to fight for re-election. He can’t afford to slack off, even when the competition is horrible, because a come-from-behind victory for Santorum and the GOP would be all that was needed to set our country down the path towards a religion-based government.

Rick Santorum and the 2012 Election

Sick children, death panels and a lousy pool of GOP candidates define this year's election.

Rick Santorum is falling, falling, falling deeper into irrelevancy, and rightly so. When Michele Bachmann dropped out, everyone expected it. Then the clown from Texas dropped out after forging ahead stubbornly, ignoring reports that nobody really liked him. Now, the last remaining joker is left, but he is much more sinister, in my opinion. When you watch Santorum speak, and you really listen to him, you don't get the feeling that he's just doing what he thinks will get him elected. You get the feeling that he really believes the craziness he spews.

Sick Children and the Cost of Medications

The thing that bothers me the most about this man isn't his borderline religious fanatacism. It isn't the fact that he's probably beholden to his multi-billion dollar corporate backers. It's the fact that he doesn't really seem to care about anyone but himself. This is total speculation, here. I can't read the man's mind, but I found it very odd that, when he spoke about his daughter, Bella's, stay in the hospital recently, he told the reporter that when she woke and smiled at him, his first thought was, ' Okay, Daddy can get back to work.'

His first thought wasn't, 'Thank God, my child lives! I want to spend some quality time with her!' No. His first thought was about getting back on the campaign trail. That says much more to me about the man's character than anything else. We can all brush off his comments to the mother of the sick child, telling her to stop complaining about high drug prices as a sort of obligatory statement in favor of his benefactors. However, it's a hard statement to ignore when you put it together with the fact that he seemed too eager to leave his disabled daughter to "go to work."

Death Panels and James Dobson

Santorum continues to spread falsehoods about the existence of "Death Panels," a termed originally coined by the 2008 VP candidate, Sarah Palin. Recently, he's been backing up James Dobson's claims that stroke victims over the age of 70 would not receive treatement, but instead, get "comfort care." Despite the fact that a multitude of medical professionals who have completely debunked that myth, Santorum continues to promote this lie, in the hopes of winning back voters who hate President Obama.

The consequences of spreading such falsehoods always result in gullible, angry people deciding that the President really does want to kill them off for whatever sinister reasons he may have. It makes me very afraid for the future of our country, knowing that thousands of people are allowing themselves to be led by men with less than honorable purposes. The president isn't a messiah. He isn't going to save us. The best he can do is soften the blow, and in my opinion, that's pretty much what he's done, despite Republicans' efforts to block him at all costs.

This is the Best They can Do?

My husband wrote something on his Facebook wall that I wanted to share here. It really does illustrate just how low our country has gone. The numbers might be off a bit, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that it pretty much sums up this year's election:

We have 300 million people in the US. Of those, there are 230 mil adults, and 180 mil are eligible to vote. Approximately 1/3 will always vote Republican, no matter what. Of those 60 million, I would say maybe half are eligible to be President, but you would really want to narrow that down to people who have the physical and mental capacity to handle such a stressful job, so the number is really about 5 million. Of those 5 million people, the Republicans can only come up with THESE CLOWNS?!?!?!

It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Is this what the Republicans think their base wants? Apparently so, because even Romney is so out of touch with the American people that he thinks a $3 million omission on his financial reports is "minor." I'm not a conservative, but I can't help but feel bad my friends and family who are. They've really got some horrible choices, and not even Ron Paul can redeem the GOP.

Has Obama Been a Man of His Word?

Mitt Romney implies that the president hasn't kept his promises.

Mitt Romney is desperately trying to appear the everyman since his net worth has become a huge issue with voters. Romney, who earned more than $21 million in 2010 has been feeling the heat from all sides during recent campaign activity. While he was in Florida, he told those who gathered to listen to him that President Obama's State of the Union address proved just how out of touch with reality the president is. He said Americans need a president who "means what he says."

Naturally, he's hoping voters forget that he's flip-flopped on virtually every issue since he began running for president. Mitt Romney is not an honest politician, an for him to criticize the president as not being a man of his word is preposterous, to say the least. There are some voters out there, however, who are very disappointed in Obama -- myself included -- because the media has played up his inability to reach across the aisle and negotiate terms that are in the best interet of the people rather than corporations.

But let's take a look at Politifact's numbers, shall we? Politifact rates each of the president's campaign promises by using a number of criteria, some of which I find questionable. So far, the organization has rated 332 of Obama's promises, rating 162 of those as "promise kept," and 50 of those as "compromised." Fifty-six of those promises were broken -- either because Congress voted against them, the ventures failed (as what happened with the foreclosure prevention fund), or because the president never brought it to the table. Another 64 of those promises are currently stalled because they didn't get enough votes to bring them up for debate in Congress. So, essentially, the president has about a 50%-plus average for his promises kept and has compromised on some issues in order to get a bill he felt was important passed.

Am I angry that he reneged on his promise to veto the National Defense Authorization Act? You bet I am. Am I disappointed that he tried for too long to work with Republicans at the expense of many important issues? Of course I am. I believe Obama underestimated his ability to bring both sides together, and ended up being castigated by both sides for either being too naïve or too liberal/commie/fascist/Hitler-ish (depending on which side you were on). It wasn't until 2011 that he began to show Americans that he wasn't fooling around.

He made the call to catch and/or kill two of the most wanted terrorists in recent history.
He made good on his promise to get troops out of Iraq, and is doing the same for Afghanistan.
He passed a bill making health care accessible for everyone.
And just last week, he sent out Seal Team 6 again to rescue two people from Somalian pirates.

I won't pretend and say Obama is everything I want him to be, but he is one of the few presidents I have had high hopes for. I would bet my bottom dollar that a second term for President Obama will be a much different experience than the first one. Why? Because he'll know he won't have an election to worry about. He can focus on his issues and goals without having to focus on what conservative pundits or opponents have to say about it. Obama can just buckle down and get the job done. And that is exactly what I'm hoping for.

Gingrich Took South Carolina! Democrats Rejoice!

Further deviding the conservative base, the most plausible candidate has been overshadowed by a political landmine.

Democrats rejoice, Newt Gingrich has won handily in South Carolina and will likely enjoy momentum into other early voting states. Somehow, don’t ask me how, Newt Gingrich has rallied the strident hard-right conservatives and is convinced that their platform could make for a credible run in the general election. The man that is as Washington Insider as any other, has taken one media black-eye after another for his anti-conservative and out-of-touch proclamations (“right-wing social engineering”?) and almost beached his campaign on a n early summer Mediterannean cruise, has somehow adopted the limited-government “maverick”-loving Tea Party. The result? A conservative base that is thinly straddling an enormous divide, and a plausible candidate for the general election being overshadowed by a self-obsessed adulterer and political landmine.

I may be overstating that last bit, but it’s clear that Gingrich’s re-resurgence (remember that other week?) will serve to make Romney’s previously imminent nomination a tougher contest than he had hoped. Gingrich, who has lead one of the most aggressively negative campaigns in any Republican primary against Romney, seems to be reaping the awards of that negativity. His victory is made more worrisome to the Romney campaign in that South Carolina has successfully picked the GOP nominee since 1980, perhaps not predictive of the ultimate nomination but certainly a precedent. That precedent can be a powerful talking point in debates, ads, and speeches going forward.

Furthermore, South Carolinians chose Gingrich by an impressive 12 points over Romney despite the fact that their (equally belligerent) governor Nickie Haley formally endorsed Mitt Romney weeks beforehand, and even stumped for the guy. It seems popular support may be behind Newt, even if party establishment favors Mitt.

As if to add insult to injury, an Iowa recount of the early January Caucus placed Santorum ahead of Romney by 32 votes; a contest Romney was thought to have won by a slim 8 votes. The result? Romney has gone from GOP super-favorite and nominee-inevitable to riding a dead heat with social conservative Rick Santorum (who has been conspicuously quiet in South Carolina) and quasi-conservative timebomb Newt Gingrich.

If one thing is to be learned from this GOP primary season it will be to see who is actually more influential in the Republican Party; a hardline conservative base or the Republican establishment? In any case, the epic split within the Party is not likely to be nicely sewn up once the general election rolls around. Should Gingrich enjoy the nomination, Obama’s campaign may be run from his Presidential sofa as he watches the former Speaker self-destruct all the way to November.

Why Are Republicans Against Food Stamps?

They seem unwilling or unable to empathize with a financially strapped citizenry.

Newt Gingrich recently called President Obama the "Food Stamp President." Rick Santorum infamously proclaimed that he isn't interested in helping black people with welfare. The racial jabs, whether subtle or blatant, are evidence that rich GOP candidates are so fat out of touch with the voting public, it's not even funny. Our society has largely been brainwashed into believing that most black Americans are on some kind of welfare and are lazy, entitled leeches. As a whole, this simply isn't true. Sure, there are those who take advantage of the system, but this holds true for people of every color and ethnicity.

I am sure you have heard it before. More people in 2011 were on food stamps than ever before. This was not because of anything in particular the president did, but rather the result of a horrible economy. The statistcs are alarming: more than 45 million people needed food stamps to get by last year. That's higher than the 31 million from the previous three years. If you think about all those people who actually qualify for food stamps but do not apply because they don't want to be a drain on the system, the number goes even higher.

I was reading about a man who lost his job several years ago and ended up homeless. He refused to apply for welfare out of a sense of pride and shame. He subsisted on handouts and by living out of his car for years. Recently, he gave in and applied and now re ceives about $200 a month in bensfits. This is someone who was literally starving. And guess what? Unlike what Santorum and Gingrich wouldhave you believe, this homeless man was a we,l-educated mechanical engineerwho was unable to find suxtainable work since getting laid off.

My Husband and I lived in Chicago until a year ago. We had to move south because there were simply no jobs there. And what few jobs popped up, he had to compete with hundreds of applicants. By the time we left, about half the properties on our block were empty. People were leaving, going to places where they could find work, even if it paid half of what they had earned before. We, ourselves, needed food stamps to survive for about a year, otherwise we would have gone hungry. My parents even had to use food stamps for a brief period of time when I was very young. Back then, they were real stamps and you put them in little books to use when you went shopping.

People on food stamps are not living high on the hog at the tax payers' expense. They are people like you and me experiencing hard times who simply need a helping hand to get through the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Politicians need to stop blaming the victim here. They need to start listening to the concerns of those struggling to make ends meet instead of telling them to go to school and get a job. It's easy to criticize people for being poor when such a tragedy has never happened to you. It's easy to tell someone to pull themeselves up by their bootstraps because you did it yourself. Everyone's circumstances are different. What works in one locale may not work in another. What we need is fewer selfish and judgmental people and more tolerance and understanding -- and a willingness to help others.

The point of food stamps (or SNAP, as it's called now) is not to perpetuate a poor person's dependence on government assistance. It is a way of helping people rise up from the rubble of a shattered life; a way to help people rebuild and to give them hope for a better future. Sure, there are those who abuse the system, but that's the risk you take when you become willing to help people instead of blocking off help for everyone.

The cognitive dissonance of the current crop of GOP candidates is so loud that it's even turning off lifelong, diehard conservatives. When you start to look like a jerk to the very people who voted you in, it's time to start re-evaluating your campaign. President Obama may not have done everything I wanted him to do, and he has done some things I wish he hadn't done, but given the choice between him and the competition, there is no question about who will get my vote come November.

Martin Luther King Day: Remembering the Past to Learn for the Future

The Lessons of Martin Luther King, Jr. can guide Americans in the way of peaceful protests.

Martin Luther King Day is tomorrow; while many Americans may be viewing the holiday as an extra day off of work, Martin Luther King Day has a special significance black Americans. Because of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s efforts, the United States has come from a shameful time when blacks were slave, to a time when blacks had equality in the eyes of the law, to the present when the United States’ first black president, Barack Obama, is running for his second term.

Americans still have a long way to go in the United States to achieve racial equality, but we can all still learn from the effective and peaceful protests of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who led blacks in their struggles for racial justice in the South. According to Forbes magazine, the unemployment rate in the United States amongst black males is disproportionately high and middle class blacks have been hit hardest economically during the financial crisis.

In honor of Martin Luther King Day, the Christian Science Monitor is featuring an article detailing eight of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s peaceful protests. Again, the theme of the article as well as the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. himself is of tolerance and peaceful protests. Violent protests beget more violence, and we do not want to lose any more of our young American men and women; the United States needs strong leaders of all races who are alive and can fight in peaceful ways for causes which are important to creating racial equality and eliminating the burden of poverty that many Americans face.

Americans wanting to protest because of their struggles on Martin Luther King Day should both honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and respect President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their continued peaceful and legal fights on behalf of all of the people of the United States. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. proved, peaceful protests are an effective method to effect positive and lasting changes within a political system that is sometimes broken.

There are many things for black Americans to be disappointed about, but there have been significant political changes which will impact the black community especially. Health care reform now makes it impossible for insurance companies to deny coverage based on prior conditions and the war in Iraq has ended. Of course, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t more work to be done.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0115/Martin-Luther-King-Jr.-8-peaceful...

Kansas GOP Speaker Prays for Obama's Death

He includes a reference to Psalm 109 in an email to friends and family.

Do you remember reading about the GOP Speaker of the Kansas House getting into hot water for sending an email calling Michelle Obama, Mrs. Yo Mama? In that particular email, sent to friends, family, and then forwarded to numerous people, Mike O'Neal wrote:

I’m sure you’ll join me in wishing Mrs. YoMama a wonderful, long Hawaii Christmas vacation — at our expense, of courseil

He sent another, even more offensive email from his personal emaill account, in which he quoted the Bible: Psalm 109, to be exact. If you're not familiar with that passage, let me acquaint you with it. It is a psalm encouraging vengeance against an enemy. Verses 8, 9, and 10 are clear invocations for the said enemy's death and for his children to become fatherless.

Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of desolate place.

In his email, O'Neal didn't write, "Hey, look at verse 8 and nothing more." He wrote, "At last -- I can honestly voice a biblical prayer for our president! Look it up -- it is word for word! Let us bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!

Of course, he is refusing to apologize because he's trying to mop up the mess he's made by saying he only meant verse 8, which implies he just wants Obama out of office. That is a flat-out lie because he very clearly wrote in his email that the entire psalm "word for word" was exactly what he wanted to pray about in regards to the president. If that's not praying for the man's death, then I don't know what is.

O'Neal isn't the first Republican or religious leader to invoke Psalm 109 against President Obama. In Dallas, Texas, last year, a lawsuit regarding this very issue was allowed to go forward. The issue was whether the people promoting this imprecatory prayer were inciting violence against the President. I've tried to find if this lawsuit was resolved, but so far, all I know is the court case would be decided by a jury. Anyone with common sense can see, just by reading the full text of the passage, knows it is a death wish for President Obama and destitution for his wife and children. This is a call to arms, so to speak, masked under the veil of religious devotion.

Whether you're a believer or not, Mike O'Neal and others of his ilk ought to be ashamed of themselves for even calling themselves Christian.

Is Ron Paul Really All He's Cracked Up to Be?

When I see the current pool of Republican candidates who are vying for the nomination, initially, I laugh. After the hysterics wear off, I become troubled. Is this what our country has come to? Are people like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum really the kinds of candidates people would vote for? The kind who see no problem with legislating morals and religion? It doesn't make any sense to me at all, because Republicans supposedly run on a platform of less government intervention, but there they are proposing even more government regulations on very personal and private lifestyle choices.

Those who are Libertarians claim that Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) is actually a viable choice, but when you look more deeply into his record (minus the newsletter fiasco) and beliefs, he becomes less palatable, as well. Sure, he strongly advocates the legalization of pot and wants us to get out of Afghanistan. In my opinion, those are both worthy and noble causes, which I support fully. But did you know Dr. Paul also rejects climate change and in 2003 claimed that CO2 comes from oceans? (Hint, it doesn't).

Let's run down a list of why Democrats who might be disenchanted with Obama should think twice about voting for Ron Paul:

Dr. Paul wants to eliminate the Dept. of Education. This means no student loans for underprivileged graduates, no grants, no other means of support for those who want to go to college. In essence, he basically thinks that if you don't have the money to pay for an education, then too bad. You're out of luck.
He wants to end programs such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. So those who are elderly, disabled, and extremely poor will be pretty much out in the cold in terms of assistance. He believes that the poor should rely on churches and the generosity of individual charity. The problem with that is, churches are often stretched thin as it is, and many individuals don't make charitable contributions regularly. Eliminating these programs would essentially increase the number of indigent people on the streets.
Paul wants to sell all of our National Parks to the highest bidder so they could be privately own. Can you imagine Yellowstone National Park being sold to a private company, only to have it ravaged for its natural resources? It would only be a matter of time before it happened.
He claims to believe in less government intervention, and he claims he would never let his religious beliefs interfere with policy making, but in March 2011, Dr. Paul introduced a bill to Congress called "The Sanctity of Life Act," which says that life begins at conception. If this bill passed, it would effectively make abortion murder. This is a widely-accepted view in the Evangelical Christian community.
He does not believe that recent changes in global climate are the result of human activity. He is a climate change denier.
He believes the Environmental Protection Agency should be done away with and no regulations should be in place to protect us from harmful pollutants. Do you really want to live in a world where the air is always smoggy? If you don't think we'd have that problem, just look at Beijing, China. They have some of the worst pollution in the world because they have almost no laws to regulate it.
In 2009, Dr. Paul introduced a bill that would have exempted religious institutions from any Federal rulings, essentially crippling the Judicial branch. This bill would put churches above the law. Now, I have nothing against churches and religion, but this is just wrong, wrong, wrong! So, basically, the man does not believe in separation of Church and State, and has made that very clear in the past.

This isn't everything about Ron Paul that troubles me, but it should give you a really good idea as to what he really is all about. He's not really a Libertarian. Paul is just another Ayn Randian "every man for himself" evangelical Christian bent on forcing his own beliefs on the populace.

California: Considering an Extra Tax for the Wealthy

The extra tax revenue would help fill a $13 billion budget shortfall.

California is not the only state facing a serious budget crisis and as part of the proposed fix for their shortfall, the governor is proposing a series of levies which would increase taxes for California’s wealthiest individuals. California is looking at at estimated $3.7 billion shortfall now, but next year’s projected budget shortfall is frightening: California may be facing a budget shortfall of as much as $13 billion.

The proposed tax would add 1% to the income taxes of Californians who earn more than $250,000 a year. Anyone who earns $300,000-$500,000 per year would be taxed at 1.5% per year, and the lucky earners who make over $500,000 a year would pay a 2% personal income taxes.

According to Wikipedia (and many other reliable sources), California is considered the eighth largest economy in the world. California already has one of the largest tax burdens in the United States; it ranked number six for tax burdens when measured in 2006. That said, California also has an enormous amount of of wealth and wealthy individuals and had approximately 14% of the United States’ assets as of 2010. If taxing those who benefited from living in California could actually fill the budget gap in California, there should be nothing wrong with it.

Washington state tried a similar measure in 2010. The initiative was backed by Bill Gates, Sr. and would have taxed the state’s wealthiest individuals. Opponents of the tax--likely some of the wealthiest individuals in Washington state--said that the initiative was designed just as a way to introduce an income tax for everyone in Washington state.

In the United States as a whole, the richest 1% own more than a third of of the nation’s wealth. But how much do the super-wealthy truthfully pay? You have to look at the actual numbers in a couple of different ways to understand the truth. The super-wealthy pay a higher dollar amount when they sign the checks for their tax bills than the rest of us, but they pay a lower percentage of their actual income.

If the wealthy were to pay what the governor is proposing in California, it would close up the budget hole and provide money for social programs and schools, which should be important priorities for any truthful citizen.

Conservative Appeals Court Finds Obamacare Mandate Constitutional

The opinion, written by a popular conservative judge, may help to turn opponents of the legislation.

By far the most controversial provision within President Obama’s healthcare reform bill, The Affordable Care Act, is the so-called “individual mandate”. This mandate states that every person must have health insurance, or they will pay a tax penalty when it’s time to pony up to the government. The mandate, as well as other provisions of the ACA, have had lawsuits filed in circuit courts all over the country, and even as the Supreme Court readies itself to hear on some of the controversial findings, appeals courts are still processing decisions. One recent decisions on the individual mandate that may anger (or persuade) some conservatives recently came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for The District of Columbia, who found that the mandate was, indeed, constitutional.

The suit, which was brought by The American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, accused the government of overstepping their authority on religious grounds, mandating American to buy health insurance even though many will not see a health professional, trusting their healthcare instead to God. Judge Laurence Silberman, a well-respected conservative and Reagan appointee, sits on the traditionally conservative appellate court. He also wrote the court’s opinion, stating that, “a direct requirement for most Americans to purchase any product or service seems an intrusive exercise of legislative power surely explains why Congress has not used this authority before – but that seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations,” then adding, "The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems."

There is a startling precedent set in this decision. Conservatives riled by “Obamacare” and its individual mandate likely expected a different opinion, one which upheld limitations of government power, particularly where consumerism and the private sector are concerned. However, the court’s opinion seemed to do exactly the opposite, allowing for expanded potential of the federal government’s authority under the constitution, using the individual mandate as an “imperative” to “forge national solutions to national problems.” The hope of many supporters of the ACA is that this decision will both help to persuade opponents of the law, as well as to be indicative of the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision when they begin hearings on provisions of the law early next year. The Supreme Court, which has also been a decidedly conservative judicial body, may take some direction from the conservative-leaning D.C. Appeals Court.

Pages