At least 4 of the Supreme Court justices have been quoted as saying that the Bible is just as good of a place to look for law as the Constitution. In addition, on several instances, the "Culture Of Life" phrase has been thrown around, a phrase which is born directly out of the Christian Conservative right.
Take care all.
And is thus not acceptable, just as citing the Koran or the Torah or the Book of Mormon is unacceptable.At least 4 of the Supreme Court justices have been quoted as saying that the Bible is just as good of a place to look for law as the Constitution. In addition, on several instances, the "Culture Of Life" phrase has been thrown around, a phrase which is born directly out of the Christian Conservative right.
Which justices said this? When, and where can I find it?At least 4 of the Supreme Court justices have been quoted as saying that the Bible is just as good of a place to look for law as the Constitution.
You're accusing them of saying something also said by Christians?In addition, on several instances, the "Culture Of Life" phrase has been thrown around, a phrase which is born directly out of the Christian Conservative right.
"Which justices said this? When, and where can I find it?"
Scalia, Stevens, Bryer and Ginsburg have all been quoted as saying this when they were interviewed by various news organizations, specifically the AP and Reuters. Watch C-Span when they get interviewed, as it almost inevitably comes up for some reason.
"You're accusing them of saying something also said by Christians?"
Not accusing, as they did say it, specifically Scalia when asked about his thoughts on abortion. Considering that this phrase was something that has become a stable of the Christian Right (originally coined by John Paul II but tweaked by Reagan and Karl Rove not to include war or the death penalty) it is in my opinion that judges, who are supposed to be unbiased; though if you ask Tom DeLay or the other senator from Texas whose name escapes me they'd say otherwise; should not be making reference to it. In the same way a judge should not quote phrases from the Left as Rehnquist has from time to time.
Take care all.
I'm sorry, but this idea seems, to me, at least, to be be rather... different... No offense intended, but I'd really like to see for myself where they said such a thing before I believe it--especially since if it's the case, than it would be an issue that crosses political lines, seeing as Scalia and Ginsburg are at basically opposite ends of the political spectrum.Scalia, Stevens, Bryer and Ginsburg have all been quoted as saying this when they were interviewed by various news organizations, specifically the AP and Reuters. Watch C-Span when they get interviewed, as it almost inevitably comes up for some reason.
Moreover, even if they believe that about the Bible, it doesn't mean they've been basing law out of the Bible--there are many issues where judges or other officials may believe strongly one way and act anther way because it's the oath they took when they took the job.
I think if you're looking for judges to be unbiased, you've lost the battle already (and in the state of Colorado, you've lost it to a sickening degree). Theoretically, however--in their off-time, it shouldn't matter if they're sacrificing goats to Rush Limbaugh; it's the decisions they make on the bench that are important, and, after all, what they've been hired for. If, for example, a conservative judge were basing a judgement out of the Bible in opposition to the Constitution, then there would--and should!--be a huge public outcry. But so far the virtual atrocities committed by judges on the legal system have been on the left side of the aisle. (and with no such outcry, but I've already made my feelings on the media obvious...) But to assume that a judge who uses a phrase conservatives use ( :D To me, the fact that respecting life marks them as a conservative is more telling, anyway.) is therefore going to make biased judgements from the bench is a bit of a stretch.Considering that this phrase was something that has become a stable of the Christian Right (originally coined by John Paul II but tweaked by Reagan and Karl Rove not to include war or the death penalty) it is in my opinion that judges, who are supposed to be unbiased; though if you ask Tom DeLay or the other senator from Texas whose name escapes me they'd say otherwise; should not be making reference to it. In the same way a judge should not quote phrases from the Left as Rehnquist has from time to time.
...Proto, you listen to Bill-smurfing-O'Reilly?
Nothing checks the media because there's this little thing called the First Amendment. The media is an outlet of the people - it is not part of the government, nor does it work for the government. There is nothing to check and balance with it. Everything is checking by the media, because the media is controlled by the people - the people provide the ultimate check for everything in the government.
When have the judges committed such liberal atrocities?I think if you're looking for judges to be unbiased, you've lost the battle already (and in the state of Colorado, you've lost it to a sickening degree). Theoretically, however--in their off-time, it shouldn't matter if they're sacrificing goats to Rush Limbaugh; it's the decisions they make on the bench that are important, and, after all, what they've been hired for. If, for example, a conservative judge were basing a judgement out of the Bible in opposition to the Constitution, then there would--and should!--be a huge public outcry. But so far the virtual atrocities committed by judges on the legal system have been on the left side of the aisle. (and with no such outcry, but I've already made my feelings on the media obvious...) But to assume that a judge who uses a phrase conservatives use (To me, the fact that respecting life marks them as a conservative is more telling, anyway.) is therefore going to make biased judgements from the bench is a bit of a stretch.
"I'm sorry, but this idea seems, to me, at least, to be be rather... different... No offense intended, but I'd really like to see for myself where they said such a thing before I believe it--especially since if it's the case, than it would be an issue that crosses political lines, seeing as Scalia and Ginsburg are at basically opposite ends of the political spectrum."
I was as surprised as you when Ginsberg agreed with Scalia on this, but don't fall into the trap that our society has and assume that that when you're a liberal you must be anti-religion. Apparently, Ginsberg is a highly religious woman herself.
"I think if you're looking for judges to be unbiased, you've lost the battle already (and in the state of Colorado, you've lost it to a sickening degree). Theoretically, however--in their off-time, it shouldn't matter if they're sacrificing goats to Rush Limbaugh; it's the decisions they make on the bench that are important, and, after all, what they've been hired for. If, for example, a conservative judge were basing a judgement out of the Bible in opposition to the Constitution, then there would--and should!--be a huge public outcry. But so far the virtual atrocities committed by judges on the legal system have been on the left side of the aisle. (and with no such outcry, but I've already made my feelings on the media obvious...) But to assume that a judge who uses a phrase conservatives use (
My point is that overturning Woe V Wade would be a political message morseo than something based on law because, as I see it, when a judge on the Supreme Court starts sounding like a politican in Washington, as in, saying that the "culture of life must be protected" instead of saying, "The Constitution must be upheld", that's where the problem is. It's too much of a coincidence for a Justice to be repeating catchphrases out of Washington for it to not go unchecked, and that goes either way. If another Justice started saying that they were going to rule against a Republican idea and then gave their reason for it as some Democratic catchphrase, I'd expect and express equal outrage.
Yet, the Justices have thus far done a good job in remaining out of the political spectrum in recent memory as they rightly declined to rule in the Schiavo case and have not backed the Republican outcry about stopping the Democrat's filibusters. We shall see what happens here.
Take care all.
The implication here that only conservatives respect life is so asinine it's laughable.(
I'm glad you asked...When have the judges committed such liberal atrocities?
In Colorado, Rhonda Malone, a cocktail waitress, was driving home one night in a blizzard when her car broke down. A man by the name of Ron Harlan stopped and raped her. After two hours of hell that I refuse to even attempt to imagine, she managed to escape, and was picked up by Jackie Creazza. Harlan chased after her car shooting--the chase ended when Jackie was hit by a bullet in the spine, paralyzing her for life, and Rhonda's body was found under a bridge a week later.
Harlan was caught and arrested, and after the evidence was reviewed, a jury sentenced him to death. The judge overturned the verdict, on the basis that the jury had access to Bibles in the hotel room where they were sequestered, and this may have influenced their opinion. (The judgement was later overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court.)
Cheryl Clark was a lesbian, living with Elsey McLeod, when she became a Christian. Recognizing Christianity's teachings regarding homosexuality, she broke up with her girlfriend. During the time they were together, Cheryl had adopted a child, and her lesbian partner sued for custody.
McLeod had not taken part in the adoption and had no right to custody, but the judge granted her not just visitation but joint custody on the basis that she was a "psychological parent", and furthermore ordered her to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." (emphasis mine). She's appealing the decision, but in the meantime she can't take her child to church with her for fear the preacher might mention sexual purity. Meanwhile, McCleod is not restricted in any way from bashing her former partner's religion.
Tell that to 45 million dead babies.The implication here that only conservatives respect life is so asinine it's laughable.
Or the millions of Arabs killed in our little wars to provide ourselves with a staging ground for which to invade Iran.Tell that to 45 million dead babies.
And a little thing here. Being against abortion doesn't suddenly make one conservative, it's ONE issue. Just because conservatives tend to champion it doesn't suddenly make them the paragon of virtue and goodness in the world.
Exactly, it was overturned.Harlan was caught and arrested, and after the evidence was reviewed, a jury sentenced him to death. The judge overturned the verdict, on the basis that the jury had access to Bibles in the hotel room where they were sequestered, and this may have influenced their opinion. (The judgement was later overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court.)
I agree - that's not right.McLeod had not taken part in the adoption and had no right to custody, but the judge granted her not just visitation but joint custody on the basis that she was a "psychological parent", and furthermore ordered her to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." (emphasis mine). She's appealing the decision, but in the meantime she can't take her child to church with her for fear the preacher might mention sexual purity. Meanwhile, McCleod is not restricted in any way from bashing her former partner's religion.
Do you have any Supreme Court examples? There's so many judges in the district courts, I could find a dozen nutjob conservative or nutjob liberal rulings with a google search.
I won't get into the abortion thing here, but suffice to say that there's no factual, logical reason that life begins at conception. And don't you find it the least bit disconcerting that the vast majority of anti-abortion activists are male, while females tend to be pro-abortion?Tell that to 45 million dead babies.
Also, where medical ethics are concerned, quality of life vs. life, conservatives tend to lean towards the "quality of life" side. Just a different way "pro-life" can be interpreted, which is all the more reason to abolish this "pro-life" and "pro-choice" nonsense.
First, the "millions" number is exponentially incorrect. Second, are you really trying to claim that we invaded the nation with the fourth largest army in the world so that we could have a 'staging ground' to invade a nation that we already have a border to via Afghanistan?Or the millions of Arabs killed in our little wars to provide ourselves with a staging ground for which to invade Iran.
Actually, there's plenty--but if the benefit of the doubt is good enough for convicted murderers, then isn't it good enough for infants?I won't get into the abortion thing here, but suffice to say that there's no factual, logical reason that life begins at conception.
Moreover, in most states, if you murder a woman who is pregnant and the child dies, you're charged with two murders--the woman, and the child. Yet if the woman herself has the child killed, it's perfectly legal. Does it bother you none at all that whether the child is a human being and deserving of all confluent rights or a mass of tissue not even worthy of the right to life is decided by whether or not someone else wants that child to live?
Actually, according to Planned Parenthood's own numbers, women tend to oppose abortion more than men. The highest support for abortion comes from men aged 18-34... the men most likely to get a woman pregnant and (if she doesn't have an abortion) end up paying child support.And don't you find it the least bit disconcerting that the vast majority of anti-abortion activists are male, while females tend to be pro-abortion?
Great! Let's see one.There's so many judges in the district courts, I could find a dozen nutjob conservative... rulings with a google search.
And thank god somebody is doing the right thing!Harlan was caught and arrested, and after the evidence was reviewed, a jury sentenced him to death. The judge overturned the verdict, on the basis that the jury had access to Bibles in the hotel room where they were sequestered, and this may have influenced their opinion. (The judgement was later overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court.)
But then again, I am an evil, mindless liberal. After all, I am opposed to murder.
I'm not trying to claim it, I AM claiming it. I've friends in the military who've confirmed this. It's quite strategic really. We're closing our bases in Germany, and we're constructing many, many more bases in Iraq (which is where a good deal of the money is going. Well, that and restitutions for the stuff in Iraq we accidentally blew up). We have Iran cornered, and we have the perfect staging ground for a military operation. Furthermore, you'll note that every once in awhile the media will mention something negative about Iran. This is a tried-and-true tactic, it's "softening" the American people up for the idea of war.First, the "millions" number is exponentially incorrect. Second, are you really trying to claim that we invaded the nation with the fourth largest army in the world so that we could have a 'staging ground' to invade a nation that we already have a border to via Afghanistan?
I told you guys all about this when I mentioned the project for the new american century a while back. Of course, that is all just a conspiracy theory. Uh huh...I'm not trying to claim it, I AM claiming it. I've friends in the military who've confirmed this. It's quite strategic really. We're closing our bases in Germany, and we're constructing many, many more bases in Iraq
(I would like to add, once more, that those who take part in the project for a new american century all support Bush, they are all conservatives, and they are all proponents of the Iraq war, and they will all be proponents of the war with Iran when it happens. These guys in no way have any "liberal bias".)
Posting Permissions
