For example ???

Democracy, rule of the majority, must always be limited, lest some citizens ultimately become subject to the tyranny of the majority. If you don't believe that, you should talk to someone who has lived through the "Jim Crow" era in the South.

The Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal". It nowhere implies that (after they are created) they will remain equal. Some will produce and prosper, some will not and be poor. Some will study, and some remain ignorant. Some will be lucky, others not. Nowhere does it even imply equality of outcome. We have the right to "the pursuit of happiness", not guaranteed happiness. This pursuit, as with any striving, will have as many outcomes as there are individuals.

One can only wonder what Ms. Warren's DNA would indicate. But, absent any empirical proof of a person's lineage, there is a common sense way to look at minority status. That is, would the person be perceived as being a minority by the average person. If not, they would not be subject to discrimination or the other adverse impacts resulting from that status. Absent adverse impact, the issue of protected status is moot. Ms. Warren obviously would not be subject to any of the issues for which Native American advocate.

Someone should have reminded Obama that the Jim Crow laws were " passed by a strong majority" in nearly all cases. Applying his criterion, Brown vs. Board of Education would never have happened.

If Ann Romney had worked "out of the house" Maher would be criticizing her for taking a job from "someone who really needs it.' You can't take the libs seriously. Their perception is less mature than that of the average college sophomore.

Justice Thomas remains silent and is thought to be a fool, while the vocal Ms. Dowd has removed all doubt.

I don't know if you've read any articles in Pravda lately, but if you do you'll find them more objective and written better than the NYT usual fare. That's how far the Times has fallen.

I was glad to read, "Nor did Wilson buy the argument that unemployment drove people to crime or welfare." It caused me to recall, as former resident of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, the times when steel mills were shutting down around 1980. At a time when area unemployment was as high, or higher than during the Great Depression, the Beaver Valley appeared on a list of the "10 safest places to live " in the United States. James Q. Wilson proved in scholarly way what many of us knew, or suspected, from our own experience.

What would be "fair" is for the 49% who pay no taxes, to pay at least something. Then maybe they might actually have something at stake when the government tries to spend like drunken sailors. Sorry that's not fair to sailors. Drunk or sober, they are more responsible than our government.