Justice Ginsburg likes the South African Constitution. She should retire to South Africa. I am unfamiliar as to whether Supreme Court justices have always had a lifetime appointment or not. I think justices being given lifetime appointments needs to end.

I do think the establishment is doing a bit of finagling with some of the delegates for Romney but other than that I agree with you that there is no conspiracy to complicate the primary electoral process. I'm not sure whether Romney is worse than McLame or not but he cannot go on being a brittle, dull character that he has been throughout the primaries if he ends up going head-to-head with Obama. We need someone with passion. Rick Santorum has passion and is the most consistent conservative out of the four candidates. This is why I believe he is the right man at the right time. Similar to Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan never shied away from calling evil evil or from addressing the social issues.

As long as Brewer didn't endorse Ron Paul I am happy. He is my least favorite out of all the candidates. Although, I do wish she had endorsed my man, Rick. I hope Rick kicks Romney's butt in Michigan.

Love the cartoons! The lifeguard one was great!

How has Santorum gotten personal? He has only stated that he would rather work with people instead of firing them. Otherwise, he has defended Romney and/or not gone after him for his business practices at Bain. You might want to listen to this interview: http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2012/01/rick-san....

I think Palin was referring to corporate crony capitalism, although I'm not sure since I didn't hear the entire interview. Now, I'm not sure whether Bain's dealings qualify as crony capitalism or not. I have a feeling she might be wrong on this one. We must not resort to the purist philosophy like libertarians do.

I've amended my post to correct the inaccuracy of the statement you quoted above. A clarification has been added to my post. My misstatement did not rightly reflect my knowledge of what infallibility means and what it applies to and what it doesn't apply to.

A heads up with a link to your article would have been nice - a basic courtesy that I expect of other bloggers.

Point taken about the misunderstanding of infallibility. I tend to rely on my husband for feedback on doctrinal issues and was depending on him to have caught that as a mistake if it was one, but it slipped right past him. However, I still tend to think that there is a lack of prudence in hastily, casually and uncritically tossing away centuries of tradition in favor of a modern sensibility merely on the basis of a lack of an infallible declaration to decide the issue (and it should be noted that the apologies of the Blessed John Paul II and our current pope, without denying them their due submission, are not infallible declarations).

CCC 2297 does not define torture (unless you can make a case that it does so in the original Latin). It condemns (non-infallibly) torture "which" fits the characteristics mentioned without defining torture in general apart from those characteristics and without condemning it (unless you and I have a different understanding of the meaning of the English word "which"). There is also a regrettable vagueness in the condemnation ("moral violence"?) which limits its usefulness.

FYI, as a Catholibertarian I support Rick Santorum also (you know, of course, that you disagree, not just with me, but with your candidate), about waterboarding)...

Sincerely, Teresa from Catholibertarian and Teresamerica

Ron Paul has already defended Iran's right to close the Straits of Hormuz. He is off his rocker and needs to retire, not run for president.

I don't think Paul's a racist but his hands off approach is what bothers me quite a bit. Plus, he's covering for the person/s who actually wrote the letters. It would be a dangerous prospect to have someone that has that much of a hands off approach as president. Plus, I don't see him as being principled when he covers for the person/s who wrote those letters.