In her last column, published in several area newspapers, including the Neosho Daily News and Newton County News, Mrs. Ruestman enlightened her readers with this information:
Missouri children must be prepared to excel in a competitive world. The Republican members of the Missouri Legislature will continue to make education our number one priority and provide our students will the most updated resources to keep us on the leading edge.
She continues, "Since I've served in the House, Republicans have been taking the lead when it comes to providing Missouri children with a quality education."
Obviously, if you follow Mrs. Ruestman's reasoning, Democrats would prefer that all students go to one-room schoolhouses and learn their math on abacuses.
In another segment of her column, Mrs. Ruestman praises the court decision which backed the latest edition of the foundation formula which funds Missouri schools. "This decision shows judicial support for our long-range plan," she wrote.
Now I am getting confused. I thought we had a bunch of activist judges who force their warped view of society down people's throats. Apparently, they are only activist judges when they disagree with the Republicans.
5 comments:
Randy: I have to disagree with you. Nowhere in Marilyn's column does she state that the Democrats don't care about education. She is simply saying that education will continue to be the Republicans' top priority. She didn't say it would not be the Democrats' top priority. It probably is. But why should she speak for the Democrats when she is one of the Republicans' leaders? That is the trouble with a lot of blogs. The authors misinterpret a lot of things that are just not there. If I say I have two gorgeous grandsons, that doesn't mean I think all the other grandsons in the world are ugly. It is just a statement about my two grandsons and ONLY my two grandsons. All Marilyn was doing was stating her views from a Republican standpoint and not disparaging the Democrats. She was merely stating what the Republicans plan to do in the coming year. NO WHERE does she state that the Democrats do not care about education, nor did she imply that.
This goes in the same line of reasoning of "racial" comments levied against President Obama. Just because someone happens to disagree with President Obama doesn't mean he or she is a racist just because he is black. But according to some people, including former presidents, even the comment "You Lied" is racist. It doesn't make sense to me.
And just because I mentioned a fault of a lot of blogs, does not mean that I am against all blogs.
Buzz Ball
the reason why Republicans are so anti education. in order to create future voters who are willing and even excited to vote against their own best interest, you have to keep people uninformed and ignorant. Every time Republicans cut education funding, their just helping their own cause by creating future Republican voters.
I’m a lawyer and a Republican and I do not have a problem with judges making judgements. Are you suggesting that in this case the judge created a law, because that’s what we have a problem with.
There are plenty of ambiguities in the language of most laws that require a judge to interpret what it means based on precedent and what Congress intended to accomplish when they drafted the law. An activist judge, on the other hand, is someone who “improves” upon or simply creates out of whole cloth a law rather then leaving that to the legislative branch.
For instance, the fourth amendment states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” So, the plain language of the amendment deals only with searching people and seizing things. However, from this amendment the Supreme Court suddenly found, after nearly 200 years, a right to have an abortion, which has nothing to do with the government searching or seizing anything.
The people that support the right to an abortion really don’t even argue that the 4th really created such a right when it was ratified rather they argue that society evolved and thus that is what it means today. Of course, the problem with this theory is that if Judges are allowed to create new rights based upon current fashions then they are allowed to take them away when fashions change.
Imagine how much easier it would be to confirm a Supreme Court Justice if we followed the Constitution and amended it to include a right to abortion rather then simply saying the Constitution means whatever a Justice wants it to mean on any given day.
Ruestmans lil man needs to start putting his name on things
If you are going to make an ad hominem attack on a poster for posting anonymously you might consider signing your own name to your post. You might also try making a reasoned argument, since Democrats are so well educated that shouldn’t be too hard for you.
Post a Comment