Judicial Nominations

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-20-2005, 10:17 PM
eestlinc

look, Bush is intenionally ramming the absolute most extreme, most objectionable judges through because he wants to have his way and crush the Democrats and set up a theocratic judiciary that will very much "rewrite the Constitution" the same way you think "crazy liberal" judges would rewrite the Constitution. The Democrats would be utter fools to just stand by and let it happen. So they're fighting because the Republicans have intentionally backed them into a corner. The Republicans made this bed, and now they have to sleep in it. All they have to do to avoid this mess is remove the absolute most extreme nominees. Plenty of good old conservative judges would get through because the Republicans do hold the majority and they do have the votes.

You certainly don't have to stop calling one of our Presidents Satan, and it's not against the rules or anything, but it would be a gesture of good faith. I don't think you like when people here call George W Bush a moron, or a fascist, or whatever else they call him. So lead by example and show Clinton the respect that every current and former President deserves. Otherwise you just paint yourself as more and more a crazed reactionary that should be disregarded on all counts. I'm just giving advice, not announcing a staff dictum or anything.

I might post examples of Bush leaving "compromising Democrats" out to dry, although I think it's pretty obvious and the direct cause of such resolute opposition to Bush on his initiatives now. Besides, Bush has been pushing initiatives that are directly in conflict with core Democratic values. When Clinton tried to push through healthcare reform the Republicans dug in and fought to the death. You probably didn't have a problem with that.
05-20-2005, 11:21 PM
nik0tine

Quote:

Are you serious. "Lame" is OK, "Nazi" is OK, "I hope they shoot each other" is OK, "I want them all to die" is OK, but "Biilzebubba" offends people's delicate sensibilities? If I instead call him "Mr. Fluffy Bunny", will that be suitably inoffensive?

Eest asked you to stop. From what I gather, it wasn't a warning, and if you continue using that term you aren't going to be banned again.
05-21-2005, 05:35 AM
The Redneck

Quote:

look, Bush is intenionally ramming the absolute most extreme, most objectionable judges through

Which ones? How about the details, here--which one is "absolute most extreme, most objectionable", and how do we know they're so extreme?

Quote:

hat will very much "rewrite the Constitution" the same way you think "crazy liberal" judges would rewrite the Constitution.

Are rewriting. Thus the Massechussettes Supreme Court examining the most explicitly Christian document since the Council of Niceae and finding a right to homosexual marriage, the US Supreme Court finding a right to privacy in the ninth Amendment and a right to kill your children hidden in that, the cases of Ron Harlan and Ms. Clarke, etc.

Quote:

Besides, Bush has been pushing initiatives that are directly in conflict with core Democratic values.

This is an interesting one here--which initiatives? Would that be the spending increases? The education bill so abysmal that Ted Kennedy supported it? I really would like to see some example of where this crazed theocratic conservative pushed through some crazed theocratic bill or missive or whatever and "hung the Democrats out to dry". And I'd love to see one of these "compromising Democrats".
05-21-2005, 05:37 AM
nik0tine

Quote:

Are rewriting. Thus the Massechussettes Supreme Court examining the most explicitly Christian document since the Council of Niceae and finding a right to homosexual marriage

Are you talking about the constitution of the United States of America? Just because it says "God" doesn't mean it is Christian.
05-21-2005, 06:13 AM
The Redneck

Quote:

Are you talking about the constitution of the United States of America? Just because it says "God" doesn't mean it is Christian.

Actually, while the influence of Christianity on the founding of our nation is obvious, the Massechussettes Supreme Court bases their decisions (in theory) off of the Massechussettes state constitution--with several references to "the great Legislator of the universe" and notations about the "duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Perserver of the universe."
05-21-2005, 04:56 PM
edczxcvbnm

I don't know what you were trying to point out there but that could be any religion with a Deity.
05-21-2005, 05:41 PM
eestlinc

I think I'll go hit my head against the wall instead.
05-21-2005, 11:42 PM
ShunNakamura

Actually the first three presidents of the US as well as several of the founding fathers were Deists or held Deistic ideals.. not christians. Look it up in Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religion(this only mentions the first three presidents, not all the found fathers(that were deist).. I'll have to find a reputable source on the rest of them.

Anyways back on topic. Why should we not keep in our congress the ability of the minority to defend itself against the majority?
05-23-2005, 07:20 AM
Azure Chrysanthemum

A few points.

1) The rights of the minority MUST be preserved, and that especially includes the right of the public to have fair judges. Conservative judges dominating the Supreme Court, of all things, is utterly inexcusable. Really, the justices shouldn't really be biased at all, but at the very least they should show themselves able to make unbaised decisions based on the law and only the law.

2) The Constitution is NOT a religious document and to believe it is is utterly asinine. The Constitution is a legal document, it defines the government and grants certain rights, including the freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "the freedom to have one religion imposed upon you by the government".

3) The right of the Fillibuster is integral in protecting the minority, and it IS hypocritical of the Republicans to want to eliminate it in order to preserve their own power. This country is already too dominated by the politicans and the people lack the power of choice (as we've two generally bad choices, Democrat or Republican) and the power to make one's voice heard is dwindling. We're already on dangerous road, and the elimination of the fillibuster and what it could mean for our country in the long run is a terrible thing indeed.
05-23-2005, 03:48 PM
DarkLadyNyara

Quote:

Actually the first three presidents of the US as well as several of the founding fathers were Deists or held Deistic ideals.. not christians.

Exactly. And yet somehow that isn't taught in school...

Quote:

2) The Constitution is NOT a religious document and to believe it is is utterly asinine. The Constitution is a legal document, it defines the government and grants certain rights, including the freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "the freedom to have one religion imposed upon you by the government".

Thank you. It's good to know some people realize this.
05-23-2005, 11:57 PM
lordblazer

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

I think the Democrats should keep fillibustering. Alot of theese judges are far right extreamists, and only the most radical ones are blocked. We have the fillibuster for a reason, and I noticed no one complained when the Republicans used it against Clinton. Personally, I'm glad the Dems found a backbone.

*agrees*
05-24-2005, 03:37 AM
Raistlin

The best nickname for Clinton is Slick Willy. Billzebubba(or whatever) was mildly amusing, but not nearly as appropriate.

Quote:

The Democrats blocked a lot more judges than the Republicans blocked during Biilzebubba's presidency (mostly because Trent Lott was about nutless), and with a whole lot less reason. Even in general, it's not the conservative judges who are out there re-writing the Constitution.

Yeah, because the Patriot Act was supported by the constitution - oh wait. No, that wasn't made by conservative judges, but it wasn't declared unconstitutional, which it definitely should have been.

I support the fillibusters, because that allows the minority party to at least have some voice in a one-party government. We have a Republican executive branch, a majority Republican legislature...do we also need a vastly Republican judicial branch? Basically, the Republicans are just bitching now because it's against Republican judges. I, for one, couldn't care less which party it is - fillibusters have a sound purpose in a two-party government. It's not anti-American, it's anti-one-party-domination.

EDIT: Also, how can you call the Constitution religious when it explicitly forbids the government to do anything "respecting an establishment of religion."
05-24-2005, 05:27 AM
The Captain

Update:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...libuster_fight

Take care all.
05-24-2005, 06:20 AM
edczxcvbnm

They just just form a new party or work together all the time so that things stay moderate. They would hold all the power...or something. I wish I could say that this is the end but that supreme court nomination that will eventually come is just a big time bomb waiting to go off.
05-24-2005, 07:06 AM
The Redneck

Quote:

Actually the first three presidents of the US as well as several of the founding fathers were Deists or held Deistic ideals.. not christians.

Like that guy who said it's impossible to govern a nation without God and the Bible (Washington)?

Quote:

1) The rights of the minority MUST be preserved, and that especially includes the right of the public to have fair judges. Conservative judges dominating the Supreme Court, of all things, is utterly inexcusable. Really, the justices shouldn't really be biased at all, but at the very least they should show themselves able to make unbaised decisions based on the law and only the law.

But liberal judges dominating the Supreme Court are tolerable? It's arguable that we lost our right to fair judges long ago--and inarguable, if you live in Colorado.

Not to mention that despite the claims of their detractors, I have yet to see any evidence that these judges are "extreme, far-right radicals".

Quote:

2) The Constitution is NOT a religious document and to believe it is is utterly asinine. The Constitution is a legal document, it defines the government and grants certain rights, including the freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "the freedom to have one religion imposed upon you by the government".

First, I was referring to the Massechussettes State constitution--which is an explicity Christian document.

Second, nobody's trying to "impose one religion upon you"--but the Constitution also doesn't grant the right to never, ever hear the word "God".

Quote:

3) The right of the Fillibuster is integral in protecting the minority, and it IS hypocritical of the Republicans to want to eliminate it in order to preserve their own power.

The filibuster isn't being eliminated (not to mention, this 'right' isn't anywhere in our Constitution). The Senate will be allowed to vote them down on one subject.

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page