Santorum's point exemplifies the difference between being pro-active and re-active. 

Republican strategists heard the "you didn't build that" comment (which may have been taken out of context, but nonetheless did embody what liberalism teaches) and declared that Romney needed pounce on it. 

But long after the point had been made, the GOP failed to fit that episode into a broader narrative about success for all people. Instead, the message seemed to be: if business owners succeed, you will too. Well, that may be true as far as it goes, but it sure doesn't go far enough.

What rights do the Internet/email companies have with regard to the metadata?

If they view a subpoena or court order as requiring them to turn over far more data/metadata than what is reasonable, what sorts of arguments can they make with regard to their "privacy interest" in information they ostensibly own?

I agree that the blanket warrant is the problem. Any government official could swear to the following: "Al Qaeda members use computers. We don't know all of their email addresses, but we suspect they use emails. Therefore, we need all of Verizon's emails."

That's fair, in part. But the picture of the package would contain everything you listed except the weight and the billing info. The underlying point is still the same---the metadata is to whom, from whom, where, and when. That's all on the picture of the package. 

Regardless, who owns the picture? Who owns the transfer data on your email? Not the gov't. So if a corporation owns it, does it have a 4th Amendment right to protect it against an unreasonable search?

Mollie--I'm with you on dislike and distrust of the NSA program at issue here. But I have a question. First, the assumptions: Let's say that you're the head of the NSA, that you believe in the legality and the necessity of this program, and that you believe that were the details of the program to be revealed damage would be done to national security. 

Question: In that circumstance is there a public answer other than, "no?"

During oral argument on the Obamacare case, I recall a justice (Kagan, maybe) asking Cuccinelli whether it would be permissible for the federal gov't to require all healthcare to be paid for by or through insurance. If I recall correctly, Cuccinelli said that would probably be permissible.

I suspect that at some point very soon, all doctors will be required to take Medicare patients and will be prevented from screening new patients based on what insurance they have (many providers will instruct their receptionist to say that they are not accepting new medicare/medicaid patients at this time). 

Doc: How many guns do you have in your house?

You: Well, none, technically. There are three in the car, and two on my person (one of which is in my bag and one, well, I'm not gonna say where).

(Full disclosure, I'm a Baptist Calvinist, so I'm in JP's camp most of the time doctrinally.)

The main problem here is communicating via Twitter to people who have been a tragedy. Piper's a good man as far as I know, and his church does a lot of good. But the idea that everybody needs a Twitter account is nuts. Influential mega-church pastors and authors do not need Twitter accounts. You can't give context to Job on Twitter, no matter haw many Tweets you send out.

So, in my opinion, Piper's first mistake was having a Twitter account. His second mistake was quoting an obscure verse from Job to the people in Oklahoma. His third mistake was offering context through a second round of 140ish characters. Etc.

It's kind of like when something bad happens to you and some well-meaning friend quotes Romans 8:28 to you. You just want to smack that person because it's insensitive. 

My two year old and I listen to Bach every morning on the way to his day-school. You want conservative? That's conservative.

Although, Bach was a government employee most of his life, so there's that . . . .

I would say, "G.K.: agreed, as far as you stated, though I would qualify the statement. However, I don't want to lose an argument, so let's go have a drink and a nice cigar."

I'm jumping in late here, but here's a thought that's been gnawing at me: What kind of a person goes to medical school in order to be an abortionist? 

I'm a lawyer, and as such I'm fully aware of stereotypes of various kinds of attorneys: personal injury lawyers are ambulance chasers; insurance defense lawyers are heartless; patent lawyers are wonky; criminal lawyers are grimy, etc.

I deal with doctors a good bit in my practice, and I develop certain biases about them, which I'll withhold. But I can't imagine any of the neurosurgeons, internists, or orthos performing abortions.

Part of what makes me curious as to the morality of men who would become abortionists is that their practice is based on their patients making certain decisions that lead to heartache. 

All doctors, I suppose, have jobs because of the Fall, but that is particularly true for abortionists in a way that it's not for others.

I mean to say all this with a gentle spirit. We can be too cavalier in how we speak about abortion as we never know who in our audience is saddled with guilt associated with it.

Did I misread this----is one of the authors 102 years old? Holy Moses!

Dumb and Dumber

Let me add that with regard to rearing people to accept the written word as authority is also stunted by so-called liberal protestant denominations. Without addressing any theological implications of liberal interpretation of Scripture, if we accept that there are certain denominations that more or less write-off certain portions of the Bible (qualifications for elder, for instance, or proscriptions against homosexuality) as being misguided cultural stances, then I think those denominations are likely more prone to produce living constitutionalists than would be an atheistic humanist, because the former is being trained to reject certain written words on the basis of principle while still claiming to adhere to the text.

EJ--you should update his Wikipedia page. I really just read that PAT story there. I'm glad I cited Wikipedia and didn't simply act like I knew what I was talking about.

BG-- I accidentally clicked on your bio instead of the link on the Alert--- I saw you're a Presbyterian minister, and you make note that you're not PCUSA. 

Calvinist?