|
Some
of Congressman Dennis Ross' 'good' bills:
– Compiled
by Gordon Wayne Watts, Editor-in-Chief, The
Register – Wednesday, 19
December 2012
|
Selected
“Morals” bills, co-sponsored by Rep. Dennis Ross
(R-FL-12TH), specifically dealing with abortion
|
|
(MORAL
and FISCAL)
H.R. 3 (1/20/2011) The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act of
2011 (Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher
H. [NJ-4]; Cosponsors (227) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross,
FL-12)
|
|
(MORAL)
H.R. 3803 (January 23, 2012) To amend title 18, United States
Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District
of Columbia, and for other purposes.
(Sponsor: Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2];
Cosponsors (222) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
|
Comments:
I am pro-life (and do not think it right to kill an unborn child
except in genuine self-defense where he/she is threatening the
life of the mother), and thus I agree with & approve of Ross'
support of these bills. (Also, even many 'pro-choice' advocates
recognise that the taxpayer should NOT foot the bill to elective
abortions.) However, absent either a re-visitation by the U.S.
Supreme Court of Roe v. Wade, or a federal amendment to the U.S.
Constitution defining the unborn child as a person (and thus
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment), abortions will remain
legal. Even pro-life legal experts agree that: “neither a
federal statute enacted under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
defining the word “person” as used in § 1 of the
Amendment, nor a statute removing the Supreme Court’s
appellate jurisdiction over abortion cases would have that
effect.”
Source:
http://www.LifeNews.com/2011/10/06/there-is-no-silver-bullet-to-overturning-roe-v-wade/
(“There
is No Silver Bullet to Overturning Roe v. Wade,” by Paul
Linton | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/6/11 3:42 PM. Paul
Linton is special counsel to the Thomas More Society, a pro-life
legal group.)
So,
all the posturing in the world here is of little value, and
contributes no more than a “drop in the bucket” to
protecting the unborn. It might be a better use of time/energy to
ensure protecting those already born, both children and adults.
|
Selected
“Constitutional” bills, sponsored or co-sponsored
by Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL-12TH), specifically dealing with the
following 'Constitutional' issue: Recess Appointments, Foreign
Affairs, and The 2nd
Amendment
|
|
(CONSTITUTIONAL)
H.Res.509 (Jan. 10, 2012) Disapproving of the President's
appointment of four officers or employees of the United States
during a period when no recess of the Congress for a period of
more than three days was authorized by concurrent resolution
and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
those appointments were made in violation of the Constitution
(Sponsor: Rep Black, Diane [TN-6]; Cosponsors (126) Co-sponsor:
Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
|
|
(CONSTITUTIONAL
and MORAL)
H.RES.57 (1/26/2011) Expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the United Nations and other international
governmental organizations shall not be allowed to exercise
control over the Internet. Sponsor: Rep
Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45]; Cosponsors (7) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis
Ross, FL-12)
|
|
(CONSTITUTIONAL)
H.R.822 (2/18/2011) National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of
2011 (To amend title 18, United States
Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which
nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the
State.) (Sponsor: Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6]; Cosponsors (245)
Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
|
|
(CONSTITUTIONAL)
H.R.2900 (9/13/2011) Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement
(SAFE) Act of 2011 (Secure Access to
Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011 - Amends the federal
criminal code to provide for reciprocity for the carrying of
certain concealed firearms in different states by persons who
are not prohibited by federal law from possessing,
transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and who are: (1)
carrying a valid state license or permit for carrying a
concealed firearm, or (2) otherwise entitled to carry a
concealed firearm in their state of residence.) (Sponsor: Rep
Broun, Paul C. [GA-10]; Cosponsors (23) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis
Ross, FL-12)
|
Comments:
I do agree with U.S. Sovereignty regarding our Internet services.
However, while I agree that the president should not violate the
Constitution when making appointments, I wonder: why the lame and
toothless 'resolution'? Also, I do agree that there should be some
provisions to allow more easy access to law-abiding citizens to
keep and bear arms in states other than their own. However, none
of this did anything to help law-abiding citizens protect the
children or teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown,
Connecticut.
Federal
lawmakers (even Dennis Ross, an apparent 2nd
Amendment supporter) have let us down and NOT learned the lessons
of Texas, and this has cost many lives.
Teacher and Staff are allowed to carry firearms into class to
protect staff & students against school shootings, and it
WORKS: You don't hear about any school shootings in Texas, because
the criminals know they will meet with resistance. Observe:
*
"In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns" (By
JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr., August 28, 2008) New
York Times: "Barely
100 students attend classes at Harrold, a tiny town in
north-central Texas. But the school board's decision to allow
teachers to carry concealed weapons has drawn national attention."
- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html
*
"Readin', writin', 'rithmetic — and now maybe
revolvers: North Texas school's teachers can carry guns" (By
JENNIFER RADCLIFFE, Aug. 16, 2008) The
Houston Chronicle: 'Thweatt
said that despite the outrage from his public school peers,
Harrold stands by its decision. The first few months of the new
policy have gone smoothly, he said. "We think we have acted
cautiously and wisely," said Thweatt. "Others should be
free to govern their school districts as they see fit."
Thweatt said the small community is a 30-minute drive from the
sheriff's office, leaving students and teachers without
protection. He said the district's lone campus is situated just
500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a
target.'
- http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5947050.html
*
"Guns for Texas school's teachers" (Saturday,
16 August 2008 02:06 UK) BBC: "Teachers
in one part of the US state of Texas are to be allowed to carry
concealed firearms when the new school term opens this month."
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7564654.stm
*
"Texas Teachers Packing Heat" (August
19, 2008) U.S.
News & World
Report: - http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/08/19/texas-teachers-packing-heat.html
*
"Texas School Teacher Guns" (Categories:
Education) Mahalo.com.: "When
the federal government started making schools gun-free zones,
that’s when all of these shootings started. Why would you
put it out there that a group of people can’t defend
themselves? That’s like saying 'sic ’em’ to a
dog." —quoting Harrold School Superintendent David
Thweatt, as reported in the Ft.
Worth Star-Telegramarticle:
"Small Texas school district lets teachers, staff pack
pistols" (August 15, 2008)
- http://www.mahalo.com/texas-school-teacher-guns
Likewise,
you don't have 'Virginia Tech' or 'Columbine' type shootings in
Utah colleges & universities. Utah permits students, staff, &
professors with the proper permit to carry concealed weapons onto
campus, and like Texas, such criminals know not to attempt any
shootings. (How many lives could have been saved at Sandyhook had
either Connecticut or the Federal government remembered Utah's
successful model?) “If it works, don't fix it!” –
Observe:
"Utah
students hide guns, head to class" CNN: Feb. 21, 2008
- http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/cnnu.guns/index.html
"Utah
only state to allow guns at college" AP: April 28, 2007
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18355953
For
an opposing view, see: "More Guns on Campus?" By Suzanne
Smalley, Feb. 15, 2008 - http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174
A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
The SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES in DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No.
07-290; Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008) 478
F. 3d 370, affirmed
the lower court's decision and held that "1. The Second
Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the
home." (Pp. 2–53)
While
the right to bear arms is a good ("wise as a serpent")
deterrent to crime, the true solution must (be "innocent as
the dove" and) include a change in the heart of the people
from sinful to righteous. Only by combining both of
these methods will we make practical headway against crime.
"Behold,
I am sending you out like sheep in the midst of wolves; be wary
and wise as serpents,
and be innocent
(harmless, guileless, and without falsity) as doves."
(Words
of Jesus in Red; Matthew
10:16,HOLY
BIBLE, Amplified Version)
For
those 'religious' people who believe in God and Bible, even the
Holy Bible (Old AND New Testaments) supports the Second Amendment.
Observe:
"Then
He said to them, But
now let him who has a purse take it, and also [his provision] bag;
and let him who has no sword sell his mantle and
buy a sword."
(Words
of Jesus in Red; Luke
22:36, HOLY
BIBLE, Amplified Version)
"When
the strong man, fully
armed, [from
his courtyard] guards his own dwelling, his belongings are
undisturbed [his property is at peace and is secure]."
(Words
of Jesus in Red; Luke
11:21, HOLY
BIBLE, Amplified Version)
17
Those who built the wall and those who bore burdens loaded
themselves so that everyone worked with one hand and
held a weapon with the other hand,
18
And every builder had
his sword girded by his side,
and so worked. And he who sounded the trumpet was at my side.
19
And I said to the nobles and officials and the rest of the people,
The work is great and scattered, and we are separated on the wall,
one far from another.
20 In whatever place you hear the sound
of the trumpet, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us.
21
So we labored at the work while
half of them held the spears from dawn until the stars came
out.
22
At that time also I said to the people, Let everyone with his
servant lodge within Jerusalem, that at night they may be a guard
to us and a laborer during the day.
23 So none of us--I, my
kinsmen, my servants, nor the men of the guard who followed
me--took off our clothes; each
kept his weapon [in his hand for days].
--Nehemiah
4:17-23, HOLY BIBLE, Amplified Version
|
Selected
“Fiscal” bills, sponsored or co-sponsored by Rep.
Dennis Ross (R-FL-12TH), specifically dealing with things such
as The Debt Limit, selected appropriations, budgeting (incl. a
proposed Balanced Budget Amendment), spending,
salaries/pensions, and The Federal Workforce
|
|
(FISCAL)
H.J.RES.98 (1/13/2012) Relating to the disapproval of the
President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit,
as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States
Code, on January 12, 2012. (Sponsor: Rep Reed, Tom [NY-29];
Cosponsors (86) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
|
|
(FISCAL
and MORAL) H.R. 4188
(3/8/2012) The NO FIELD Act of 2012 (To reduce the
discretionary spending limit for the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2013 by an amount equal to the amount obligated by
the Department in fiscal year 2012 to provide recreational
facilities to Guantanamo detainees.) (Sponsor: Rep. Dennis
Ross, FL-12; Cosponsors (5))
|
|
(FISCAL)
H.R. 821 (2/8/2011) To require zero-based budgeting for
departments and agencies of the Government (Sponsor: Rep.
Dennis Ross, FL-12; Cosponsors (2))
|
|
(FISCAL
and CONSTITUTIONAL)
H.J.RES.56 (4/7/2011) Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the
budget. (Sponsor: Rep Walsh, Joe [IL-8]; Cosponsors (61)
Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
(Note: Ross apparently co-sponsored
House-Joint Resolutions 2, 11, 23, 52, and this one, 56, in the
112th Congress (2011 – 2012), in attempts to amend the
U.S. Constitution to include this amendment.)
|
|
(FISCAL)
H.R.4060 (2/16/2012) Freeze Government Spending Act of 2012
(To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 to cap the level of Federal spending at $949 billion
for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2021, and for other
purposes.) (Sponsor: Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck"
[TN-3]; Cosponsors (11) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
|
|
(FISCAL)
H.RES.82 (2/10/2011) Amending the Rules of the House of
Representatives to establish the Committee on the Elimination
of Nonessential Federal Programs. (Sponsor: Rep Duncan,
Jeff [SC-3]; Cosponsors (22) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross,
FL-12)
|
|
(FISCAL
and MORAL) H.R.3835
(1/27/2012) To extend the pay limitation for Members of
Congress and Federal employees. (Sponsor: Rep Duffy, Sean
P. [WI-7]; Cosponsors (4) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
(Note: 'Federal' employees would include
U.S. Postal workers, so many 'middle-class' advocates opposed
this bill, even though it would limit pay raises for Members of
Congress, who already get in the ballpark of 100 Grand per
year, and can more easily afford it. So, this bill has its
pro's and its con's, but as it *limits* cost of inflation pay raises
across a broad base, including members of Congress, that is
good in regard to overspending concerns, and favourable to many
fiscal conservatives.)
|
|
(FISCAL)
H.R.1111 (3/16/2011) Decrease Spending Now Act - Rescinds $45
billion of unobligated balances of current discretionary
appropriations. (Sponsor: Rep Price, Tom [GA-6]; Cosponsors
(55) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
(Note: Let's compare 45 Billion with the 16
Trillion deficit, shall we? The ratio is 0.0028125 to one, or
put another way, 45B is 0.28125% of 16T, which is less than a
half-a-percent. Hmm... So, this bill is “good,”
but not any more than a drop in the bucket, eh?)
|
|
(FISCAL)
H.R.3481 (11/18/2011) Stop Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act of
2011 (Prohibits a provider of commercial mobile
communications service from receiving universal service support
under specified provisions of the Communications Act of 1934
for the provision of such service through the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Lifeline program (a program
that provides discounts on monthly telephone service to
qualifying low-income consumers).) (Sponsor: Rep Griffin, Tim
[AR-2]; Cosponsors (20) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
|
|
(FISCAL)
H.R.3480 (11/18/2011) End Pensions in Congress Act of 2011
(Sponsor: Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] Cosponsors (15) Co-sponsor:
Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
[[SUMMARY of
H.R.3480 (11/18/2011) End Pensions in Congress Act of 2011 AS
OF: 11/18/2011--Introduced.
End Pensions in
Congress Act or EPIC Act - Amends the Civil Service Retirement
System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees' Retirement System
(FERS) to exclude Members of Congress, except the Vice
President, from further CSRS and FERS retirement coverage.
Prohibits further government contributions or deductions from
such Member's basic pay for deposit in the Treasury to the
credit of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
States that nothing in this Act shall: (1) be considered to
nullify, modify, or otherwise affect any right, entitlement, or
benefit under CSRS for any Member covering any period before
the enactment of this Act; or (2) affect the eligibility of a
Member to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) in
accordance with otherwise applicable law. Allows Members
covered by such exclusion, within 90 days after enactment of
this Act, to elect to remain subject to CSRS or FERS, as the
case may be.]]
Source:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03480:@@@D&summ2=m&
|
|
(FISCAL)
H.R.2114 (6/3/2011) Reducing the Size of the Federal Government
Through Attrition Act of 2011 (Sponsor: Rep Issa, Darrell
E. [CA-49]; Cosponsors (2) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
[[SUMMARY of
H.R.2114 (6/3/2011) Reducing the Size of the Federal Government
Through Attrition Act of 2011 AS OF: 6/3/2011--Introduced.
Reducing the Size
of the Federal Government Through Attrition Act of 2011 -
Requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take
appropriate measures to ensure that: (1) the total number of
federal employees, beginning in FY2015, does not exceed 90% of
the total number of such employees as of September 30, 2011;
(2) agencies do not appoint, until the end of FY 2014, more
than one employee for every three employees retiring or
otherwise separating from government service; and (3) there is
no increase in the procurement of service contracts due to this
Act unless a cost comparison demonstrates that such contracts
would be financially advantageous to the federal government.
Requires OMB to continuously monitor all agencies and make a
determination whether the total number of federal employees
exceeds the limitation imposed by this Act. Prohibits a federal
agency from filling any vacancy unless OMB provides written
notice to the President and Congress that the number of federal
employees does not exceed the limitation established by this
Act. Allows the President to waive the workforce limitations
imposed by this Act if the President determines that the
existence of a state of war or other national security concern
or the existence of an extraordinary emergency threatening
life, health, public safety, property, or the environment so
requires. Allows the President additional discretion to waive
such workforce limitations if the President determines that the
efficiency of a federal agency or the performance of its
critical mission so requires.]]
Source:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR02114:@@@D&summ2=m&
|
Comments:
I approve of and agree with ALL of these bills that Ross has
either sponsored or cosponsored—even the more controversial
bills above; however, ALL these (even combined) are a mere 'drop
in the bucket,' compared to the 'overall' appropriations bills
(both the domestic and the military appropriations). As I show
elsewhere, Ross voted 'yea' on 3 of the 4 appropriations bills
that came before him, and since the Federal Debt has continued to
climb, unabated and unchecked, Ross (and many other lawmakers) are
“as guilty as sin” here –no ifs, ands, or
buts—“Don't pass Go, Don't collect $200.”
Unfortunately, many presidents who then sign these appropriations
(e.g., spending) bills into law are just as guilty, and with only
once exception(*), NO recent administration has had balanced its
budget.
(*) The
Clinton administration was the lone exception, when Clinton's
democrats and Gingrich's republicans hammered out a compromise to
balance the budget with slightly larger taxes and reduced
spending.
|
Selected
“Immigration” bills, co-sponsored by Rep. Dennis
Ross (R-FL-12TH), specifically dealing with immigration
|
|
(IMMIGRATION)
H.R.1091 (3/15/2011) Unlawful Border Entry Prevention Act of
2011 (Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52]; Cosponsors
(16) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross, FL-12)
Note: This act
“Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of
Homeland Security (DHS) to construct an additional 350 or more
miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border,”
according to
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01091:@@@D&summ2=m&
Is that good? Well, considering that H.R.6061, The Secure Fence
Act of 2006 (introduced 9/13/2006, source:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.06061:
by Sponsor: Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3]), and subsequently signed
into law by Pres. George W. Bush (Public Law No: 109-367), it's
obvious that passing new law will NOT do any good if we
continue to REFUSE to enact and obey the CURRENT law: Even
PolitiFact, the fact-checking machine hosted by the liberal St.
Pete Times, admits that Pres. Obama is “mostly false”
in his claim that “the border fence is "now
basically complete"...DHS reports there are currently 36.3
miles of double-layered fencing, the kind with enough gap that
you can drive a vehicle between the layers. But the majority of
the fencing erected has been vehicle barriers, which are
designed to stop vehicles rather than people...It is estimated
that for every person caught (Border Patrol reported
apprehending over 445,000 illegal entrants in 2010) two more
get by, Bonner said. "To me, that doesn't seem like border
security."...Editor's note: This statement was rated
Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed
the name for the rating to Mostly False.”
(Source: “"The
(border) fence is now basically complete." Barack Obama on
Tuesday, May 10th, 2011 in a speech in El Paso,
http://www.PolitiFact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/16/barack-obama/obama-says-border-fence-now-basically-complete/
; PolitiFact)
CONCLUSION: Just as H.R. 1111 (3/16/2011),
this is really only a “drop in the bucket” band-aid
measure, NOT really addressing any problem. A “true”
conservative would demand enforcement of CURRENT law before
writing NEW law! LOL)
|
|
(IMMIGRATION
and SAFETY)
H.R.3808 (1/23/2012) Scott Gardner Act (This bill would
make DWI a 'deportable' offense, and it was named for the late
Scott Gardner, a Gaston County, NC man who was killed by an
illegal alien driving drunk. Amends the Immigration and
Nationality Act to direct the Attorney General (DOJ) to take
into custody an alien who is unlawfully in the United States
and is arrested by a state or local law enforcement officer for
driving while intoxicated or a similar violation. Directs the
officer, upon reasonable grounds to believe the individual is
an alien, to: (1) verify the individual's immigration status,
and (2) take into custody for federal transfer an individual
who is unlawfully in the United States. Directs the Secretary
of Homeland Security (DHS) to reimburse states and localities
for related transportation costs when such transportation is
not done in the course of normal duties.) (Sponsor: Rep Myrick,
Sue Wilkins [NC-9]; Cosponsors (13) Co-sponsor: Rep. Dennis
Ross, FL-12)
Sources:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03808:@@@D&summ2=m&
and:
http://Myrick.House.gov/video-features/rep-myrick-reintroduces-the-scott-gardner-act/
Notes: While I am
a big Tenth Amendment supporter of “states' rights,”
nonetheless, one chief concern of this bill is that the U.S.
Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S.
898 (1997), held it unconstitutional for the Federal Government
to impose unfunded mandates on the state executive branch of
government, as is the case here. The court held: “that
Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the
State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither
issue directives requiring the States to address particular
problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their
political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal
regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is
involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or
benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally
incompatible with our constitutional system of dual
sovereignty.”
Source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html
This bill,
however, is now moot, as the Department of Homeland Security
declared that the federal 'Secure Communities' program (which
gives federal immigration authorities access to the
fingerprints of all persons arrested by local police—including,
of course, illegal aliens arrested for drunk driving) to be
mandatory (or, at least, optional, if the state chooses not to
'opt out.'). Also, some have speculated that *even* *had* H.R. 3808
passed into law, it might result in police engaging in *racial* *profiling*,
with a result that even 'legal' immigrants would be afraid of cooperating
with police in any investigation of a crime.
(“Federal immigration enforcement is
mandatory, memo says: A recently released memo says that the
Secure Communities program will become mandatory by 2013;
states and some counties had been told they could opt out.,”
by Paloma Esquivel, January 08, 2012, Los Angeles Times,
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/08/local/la-me-ice-foia-20120109)
|
Comments:
As I said above, while I generally support these measures,
H.R.1091 (3/15/2011) was a mere “drop in the bucket,”
and a better use of Lawmakers time would be to demand enforcement
of CURRENT law BEFORE writing new law! As well, H.R.3808
(1/23/2012) the Scott Gardner Act was probably not constitutional,
certainly something that would make legal aliens fearful of
cooperating with police, and definitely rendered moot and
academic—not needed, as the Department of Homeland
Security, apparently, declared that federal 'Secure Communities'
program to be mandatory. (That is still up for debate, but I doubt
Homeland Security will garner much resistance from states here.)
CONCLUSION:
I appreciate all of Ross' votes above, but these pale in
comparison to his many other very
bad votes (and his bad conduct in his personal life, including,
for example, the booting of many people off both his personal and
his public social networks, the latter prohibited acts under the
REDRESS and FREE SPEECH clauses of the First Amendment—and,
of course, immoral if not actually and genuinely justified!).
|