If Al Gore had won in 2000 and appointed people to the Environmental Protection Agency who declared that global warming was such a monumental threat that everyone had to spend $2,000 retrofitting their cars to control emissions, do you think a jury finding that this was unreasonable would have been deferred to by the court because juries don't know as much as scientists? Yeah right.

The FDA decision says that state courts are preempted by the judgments of politically appointed bureaucrats. We KNOW, from the Vioxx vote, that some of those bureaucrats have personal stakes in the outcome of the vote, yet THEY are being allowed to preempt jury findings.

This is a bag job. And for you conservatives, I have a question: how is it that "personal responsiblity" only applies to welfare clients and never to corporate thievery?

...except that Al Gore would NOT have stacked the EPA; this is the same Al Gore--you understand--who famously declared that there was "no controlling legal authority" preventing him from soliciting funds for the Democratic Party from his White House office--the same Al Gore who capitulated to the Supreme Court in 2001 after it awarded the election to George Bush. The fact that the game is rigged--and it is--should cause you to view anyone who profits therefrom--such as Al Gore--with the utmost suspicion...and to vote for someone like Cynthia McKinney, whose contempt for Al Gore is quite extensive.

I will never lack for suspicion, friend, as for example when I noticed that only Hillary Clinton filed to run in Michigan against DNC orders, I knew she was going to try to sneak these bogus delegates into Denver.

I do remember, however, how back in the day a decent group of men sat on the Supreme Court, and the country really did change for the better. I'm talking about the middle and late 60s. Who sits in the White House does make a difference.