[lopushok]

5. Tort Reform? Great idea! Granting political favours by selective limits on liability is not.

Providing the Constitution allows it, tort reform at the federal level only ... but what if the reform conflicts with state law? ...

Selective liability -- doesn't sound Constitutional ... but I just don't know.

6. The Pledge? I don't see any direct support or prohibition against this in the Constitution. The only reasonably applicable concern seems to be the right of 'free association' which appears to be impinged.

It is to be noted that the right to remain silent is granted to the accused, but not to citizens in general?

With regard to the sub-issue of the phrase "under God", I can only opine that if politics can insert the words during the 1950's, then politics can certainly remove the words in the present day.

Not sure if the Constitution can be construed to deny the pledge on impingement of free association ... without also taking out the patriotic songs the kids have to sing each morning ... etc.

Perhaps that Roe thing allows silence in general as a part of privacy.

I despise the reason "under God" was added to the pledge ... but I can see no Constitutional violation thereby, as there is no First Amendment religion violation becauase God is simply not owned by religion. After all, "man" is mentioned in religions everywhere, but the Constitution is all about what "man" can and cannot do. That's hardly a First Amendment violation, and neither is the use of God in the pledge, as neither God or man is owned by any religion or all religions, as "man" was praying to "God" long before religions came along to comment on the relationship.

7. Gore v. Florida 2000 This was one of the worst cases of federal over-reach within recent memory. Without a doubt, the State of Florida had superior jurisdiction and authority, not the Supreme Court. The case should never have been heard at the Supreme Court.

I suppose that's the case ... from an archaic libertarian perspective.

But the Articles of Confederation was replaced by the national Constitution over 200 years ago.

This isn't a loose confederation of states -- our democratic republic is a nation, a country.

And, as populations grow more dense and technology both continues to make us more united and make geopolitical land and resource management for the country as a whole centrally easy ... the states will soon be rendered county-like ... the electoral college will be abolished ... the US will become a state of the UN ... all which the Constitution will support via the amendment process, if necessary.

Thus, seeing how the Presidential election is a national matter that affects the federal national government about which the SCOTUS is the supreme judge, the SCOTUS was not in violation of the Constitution in becoming involved in this dispute to judge whether the state of Florida conducted itself properly in the process.

And remember, like it or not Mr. Libertarian, in matters of statute-based procedural conflict, the federal overrides the state ... and this is true because we are a country, not a loose confederation of states.

That being said, I didn't like the outcome of the 2000 election ... but that's irrelevant.

Note to Congress: Please enact provisions to address this issue to provide future clarity and prevent dangerous partisan acrimony.

Is "partisan acrimony" a violation of the Constitution or supported by it?

If no or yes respectively, then you, as a SCOTUS judge would be technically Constitutionally out of bounds with your note to Congress.

There you have it.

Hmmm ... I can't tell whether you're better than Miers or not ... ... which I guess, thereby, is a sad statement on either the state of executive intelligence or how sickeningly extreme politicians will play everyone in a bait-switch scenario.