User talk:Please Don't Block

Reagan/Bush on abortion

I think there's a fair question as to the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality of these administrations on abortion. While both talked a lot about it, neither particularly did anything about it that went beyond mere symbolism. I've been working on a fairly extensive critique of the politics of abortions, and my research thus far suggests that both political parties prefer to wrangle about the issue than to take any tangible steps to address the problem at its core. BD2412 T 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Their efforts were too narrow - focused almost entirely on the courts, even though most federal judges appointed by their respective administrations have evinced no qualms with Roe. Reagan probably did have it in his heart, but Bush Sr., in particular, always seemed uncomfortable addressing the question. Both more likely considered the political angles first and foremost. BD2412 T 02:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Black

Hi,

I appreciate your concerns about the Black article. Your point about putting the different sections in chronological order is well-taken. However, this would mean putting Incorporation before First Amendment and Criminal Procedure; Adamson was decided in 1947, while the McCarthy era was in the 1950s and criminal procedure became a major issue during the 1950s. This seems to be a rather awkward way to separate the two. I wouldn't mind if we used a chronological format, but I suggest that we keep Incorporation where it is.

I'm not trying to imply that Black's jurisprudence was inconsistent. I was just noting that a "literal" reading of constitutional provisions resulted in broad interpretations in some cases, but narrow interpretations in others. If you feel that these sections could be worded better, feel free to correct them.

As to Chambers, I don't think that it should be mentioned in the civil rights section, as it had nothing to do with civil rights. I have, however, mentioned it in the Supreme Court Career section. As to Korematsu: as I indicated in my edit, mentioning the equal protection clause would be inaccurate, as that clause only applies to the states. Likewise, due process did come up during the case. -- Emsworth

User talk:Jtkiefer

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . KI 19:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize anyone's page. I left a comment on someone else's page. That is it. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

License tagging for Image:Jdenton.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jdenton.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]