That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of "handouts". If it is a reward for doing well, it is not a "hangout", liberals like to give handouts not for achievement or being right (in fact they like to punish the results of prudence and hardwork in their tax policies) but rather the to subsidize the costs to individuals of their poor choices.


As for the rest of it, I agree in the specifics, but not in the general reality. While you are correct that neither Souter or Ginsburg have come out in any opinion and declared the Death Penalty Unconstitutional, they have not, to my knowledge, ever failed to interpret the constitution in a manner that would uphold the death penalty in a single case before them. That really does beg the question if they would EVER fail to find some contorted reason (as unsupported by the text of the constitution, or the clear understanding of it by those who ratified it as reflected in their contemporaneous actions as a flat out prohibition) in any particular case.

Honestly, do you really believe that if flat out confronted with a case that was a complete no brainer, that the only option available without looking totally intellectually insincere was to rule the the death penalty unconstitutional that either Ginsburg or Souter at least would not do so?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane