Voice stress analysis says Herman Cain truthful; accuser...not so much.

Voice stress analysis says Herman Cain truthful; accuser...not so much.

This is worth sharing. Now, all you fairweather, goodtime conservatives who jumped ship after the first RUMOUR surfaced, can come back. Its safe.
Frankly, I don't blame you for being skittish, but you should have known better. You really think the Bamamachine is going to play fair?
"Oh ye of little faith."

Better way to address scandal, says professor (OneNewsNow.com)

.........a private investigator says software that analyzes the stress level in a person's voice tells him Herman Cain is telling the truth -- and that accuser Sharon Bialek is not.

WGCL-TV in Atlanta, a CBS affiliate, interviewed private investigator TJ Ward about the results he gathered from using technology that is currently employed by almost 70 law enforcement agencies nationwide to tell when someone is lying. The investigator conveyed these comments after analyzing recent sound bites using the software:

"When [Cain] directly talks about the allegations against him, [the software] tells me he is being truthful in his conversations to the public," states Ward.

As for Bialek's allegations that the GOP presidential hopeful groped her? "I don't think she is fabricating her meetings [with Cain], but she is fabricating what transpired," he remarks.

I Wonder If He Talked To Sotomayor's Husband

Remember when Justice Thomas was finally approved as a Justice? The left went nuts. One pundit even hoped his wife would feed him plenty of bacon and eggs with lots of butter, so, presumably, he woud have a heart attack from blocked arteries.

Questioning Clarence Thomas's Wife

The Atlantic's Andrew Cohen has issued a startling new challenge: he believes that the public should investigate the constitutional theories of federal judges' spouses.
Of course, Cohen has one and only one judicial spouse in mind: the wife of (surprise!) Justice Clarence Thomas.

Virginia Thomas has announced that she's starting a political advocacy group to "get the Constitution back to a place where it means something." Cohen wants more details -- specifically, he wants to know precisely where she stands on such constitutional issues as federalism and the enumerated federal powers:

These are now legitimate questions for the justice's better half, a government spouse who has just criticized her husband's co-workers in front of the whole world. She should answer those questions fully not just because the nation now has a right to know her mind on topics so closely connected to her husband's vital job. But because her answers will likely help us better understand the justice's mind as well. Does he see himself the same way, waging a mighty struggle each day against tyranny? Heroically striving with each ruling to keep the Constitution from dissolving into meaninglessness? Wouldn't you like to know these things about Justice Thomas?

Note Cohen's rhetorical sleight of hand: He tries to limit the arguments to the Thomases alone, "now" that Mrs. Thomas "has just criticized her husband's co-workers in front of the whole world." But Cohen's limitation is a non sequitur: If Cohen's fundamental concern is that the beliefs of a judicial spouse "will likely help us better understand the justice's mind as well," then doesn't that apply equally to all judges' husbands and wives? If anything, vocal spouses like Mrs. Thomas are already an open book -- the real danger would be spouses who keep a low public
profile but try to exert influence undercover (so to speak).

That said, Cohen's logic is silly, if not offensive. Husbands and wives often disagree about politics and policy -- either in the big picture or in the details. What does Cohen's contrary argument imply, that Mrs. Thomas is mindlessly furthering Justice Thomas's policy views? (An echo, not a choice?) That's hardly charitable to Mrs. Thomas, or wives generally. Or does Cohen mean that Justice Thomas is just doing his wife's bidding? An equally silly accusation, but one that Justice Thomas is
accustomed to. He's long been accused of ignorantly carrying out the bidding of supposed intellectual superiors, an accusation that Jan Crawford Greenburg thoroughly debunked years ago in her excellent Supreme Conflict.

But let it never be said that Cohen's timing isn't impeccable. Most pundits expect to see a Supreme Court vacancy in the next few months, which would be followed by another high profile nomination and confirmation process. Will Cohen demand that the Senate should question the nominee's husband, wife, or anyone else close to the
nominee whose views "will likely help us better understand the [nominee's] mind as well?"

Come to think of it, where does Mrs. Cohen stand on the issue?

Justice Thomas On CU v FEC Decision

So it would appear that the original law dates back to the early 1900's with a Democrat Senator from Dixie trying to keep the black man in his place and silence the mean old Republican corporations.

Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”