Miers.. Constitutionalist?

[Silat]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And the resulting reign of Kerry?!?!?!? The taxes? The cut and run foreign policy? The appointment of the ACLU to the Supreme Court? Sorry, I don't think I can deal with that. Can't afford the taxes, can't do without my guns, and couldn't look my military buddies in the eye after they busted bellybutton and took risks from October 2001 thru 2004 to have the cowards cut and run in 2005.

Boy are those dems evillllll. LOL
Dems are cowards???  Many dems serve just like reps. Dems have lead us thru war as have reps. This take is really old and out of line.
They dont want your guns anymore than some reps.
Reps want your money too.
Foreign policy has sure gone well under Bush LOL
And there have been many cuts for the troops and the vets under this administration.

                                         

So the talking points really dont cut it anymore...

[Hangtime]

^^^^ nailed it.

Seems like about 15-20 years ago there was this huge influx of 'republican' mentality. "Contract with America' propagandizments..

Reality point.. registered republican AND democrat voters need to look at their politicans, local, state and federal. Check their vote records. See where they stand on the issues important to you. make your choices in the voting booth based on NOT on which party flag they fly, but where they are entrenched on the issues.

Survival of the nation hinges NOT on which party is elected.. but on which PEOPLE are elected. It's not a rational or reasonable act to assume that a Republican is a 'conservative' any more than it makes sense to assume that a Liberal is automaticly a democrat.

Do your homework. Vote not the Party ticket.. vote the People on the ticket.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Booz
She's a corporate lackey. No one cares if you beer drinking, gun-toting red state trailer park patriots are afraid of gays or not. Just keep pushing those that want to cut your Walmart & Mcdonalds paychecks for the sake of corporate profits and gawd bless ya.

Exhibit A in the case of why the Left keeps losing elections.

News flash Junior! People in the South and Midwest are a lot smarter than you 'elitist' think. There is a reason our economies are doing so much better, we have jobs, new businesses, low tax rates, and in my case some of the lowest energy (not gasoline) costs in the nation.

But you keep thinking we are buffoons, we like it that way. We wouldn't want you to start coping us and actually make your lives better now would we.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
He might make YOU long for Clinton, but not me.

Clinton:

The worst government attacks on honest gun owners since LBJ and the gun control act of 1968.

Savage, let's not forget: 76 United States citizens dead at the direct hands of the Federal Government.

What were their heinous crimes? They were Christians with guns!

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Silat
Boy are those dems evillllll. LOL

Not all, but some do make you think they are.

Dems are cowards???  Many dems serve just like reps. Dems have lead us thru war as have reps. This take is really old and out of line.

Yes, but that changed drastically around 1968. From that point on most of the Democratic leadership has espoused a policy of appeasement.

They don't want your guns anymore than some reps.

Then why are they at the forefront of every attempt to undermine the 2nd amendment?

Reps want your money too.

[/b]
Yes, but they are willing to get it by me buying their products and services. Not by confiscating it at the point of a gun (taxes). Remember, all the Corp. crooks we saw in 01 filed their SEC papers during...pay attention now... THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION!

Note: Where did this myth get started. I hear it from a lot of really poorly informed, indoctrinated liberal supporters.

Foreign policy has sure gone well under Bush LOL
And there have been many cuts for the troops and the vets under this administration.

See previous post for all those grand accomplishments of the previous administration.

Note 2: I am far from a rabid Bush supporter. I also truly despise his father. He was the only choice we had. Gore or Kerry was just not an option. Hopefully the GOP will get some intelligence for change and field a real candidate in the next election.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Hangtime
henh.

President just called her a 'pit bull in size 6 shoes'.

*woof*

Apparently, I got the the dog comparison right last night.. just missed a bit on the breed.

Scotch is a heluva drug.

LOL  I do so love the unique perspective you bring to a conversation.  I had tears I was laughing so hard after reading the dog post.  

Woof!  

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Savage, let's not forget: 76 United States citizens dead at the direct hands of the Federal Government.

What were their heinous crimes? They were Christians with guns!

Do not cannonize Koresh and that bunch, they were far from saints and far from innocent. Always annoys me when people try to make martyrs out of Koresh and people like him.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Toad
1) Voted for him the first time, not the second.

2) Still a far, far better Justice for the nation in the long term than any candidate Gore or Kerry would nominate.

3) She is Stealth; it could be that she is so far right even my eyebrow will raise.

I dont want a justice who is left, I dont want a justice who is equally rightist--I want a justice who will interpret the fediddleING constitution and leave the lawmaking to the losers whom we ELECT:furious

[Nash]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Howdy Nash,

Good to chat with you again, I apologize in advance if the following doesn't make sense, I'm dog tired and my brain has that fuzzy feeling that doesn't bode well for reasoned discourse... Eh, but I press on..

Hi Seagoon,

I'll spare everyone the long-winded post, because I think we can sort of get to the brass tacs (unless I'm mistaken).

----------------------------------------------
"I believe that some things really are objectively wrong and others really are objectively right."

"In any event, a belief in objective truth means that if y is true and x is false, whether or not 51% of the people prefer x is immaterial, y is still right and should be accepted and practiced."

"Personally, I'm not a fan of pure democracy either, because they tend to lead to tyranny of the masses and demogoguery."

"Republics are built on the idea that truth is precious and that it should prevail over the "will to power" (even when that will to power is the will of the majority)."
----------------------------------------------

Now, I just pulled some of your words that I think get to the core of it: That there exists essential universal truths, and that these must prevail despite the whims of the populace.

You said it well, supported it adequately, and I agree with you.

Because I too believe the same thing. Very strongly, in fact.

Here's the problem.....

If we seperately wrote out a list of these truths and put them down side by side, they would look different.

Square that.

[Seagoon]

Hi Nash,

Thanks for your reply, I don't have much time to post at present, so hopefully I can be relatively succinct for the first time in recorded history.

Originally posted by Nash
[SNIP...]
Now, I just pulled some of your words that I think get to the core of it: That there exists essential universal truths, and that these must prevail despite the whims of the populace.

You said it well, supported it adequately, and I agree with you.

Because I too believe the same thing. Very strongly, in fact.

Here's the problem.....

If we seperately wrote out a list of these truths and put them down side by side, they would look different.

Square that.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. You see that's exactly the function of a constitution in government, it acts as a timeless arbitrator between your views and mine. When it comes to a conflict between what you believe to be true and what I believe to be true, we go to the Constitution and it tells us which position will prevail.

That's why an originalist interpretation is so critical, because it is the only one that preserves for the constitution that essential objective role as the arbitrator of all disputes.

Let me give an example; when two parties have a dispute, they go to the originalist judge, and the judge impartially refers to the constitution and then rules in accordance with its guidance (accord to the original intent of the framers) - regardless of what he or the litigants might believe or prefer.

On the other hand, when you have a positivist judge, the judge essentially assesses which position he prefers and which he thinks is true, and then declares his decision, appealing to criteria other than the original intent of the founders (international law, "penumbras", etc.) Thus he believes the society progresses, when in fact what is happening is, he is dictating his own beliefs to the society.

Some would say, "Perhaps, but if he doesn't do that, then nothing is going to ever change in the country for the better! We'll remain stuck in the 1780s, and no progress will ever be made"

The answer to that is "Not so" on two accounts. I'll only touch on one for the sake of time. The Constitution has within it, a mechanism for change via ammendment. Those ammendments are made in the legislature not the judicatory and they are rightly difficult to bring about. This way gradual change is introduced via an overwhelming consensus within the country, not the whims of an elite oligarchy.

- SEAGOON

[StarOfAfrica2]

Well said Seagoon.

[lazs2]

I think the constitution is there to protect the people against not only the government but from democracy.

How long ago did canada get a bill of rights?

lazs

[Toad]

Well put Seagoon and succinctly too.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Interesting look into the mind of Miers in the WSJ today.  Even made front page.  Apparently she was the one arguing the lawsuit brought back in 2000 to disqualify Cheney as VP because of his residency status.  Her expressed views on the way the Constitution should be interpreted in a modern society that is "light years" from the 1800s when the 12th amendment was introduced, would in my mind definitely exclude her from the ranks of the Originalists.  

Of course this was a lawyer, in court, arguing in defense of her client.  Still, if she is willing to bend the Constitution as a lawyer, whats to stop her from doing the same as a judge?  Esp. a Supreme Court judge?

As noted in the article, Ms. Miers may be the only lawyer in history to have argued a 12th amendment case in front of an Appellate court.  I think she could have won the argument without twisting the Constitution.  Even an orthodox interpretation of the 12th amendment would have allowed for changes in residency.  Instead she pulled all the punches and interpreted it her own way.  And was very effective in her arguments.  Thats scary.

[Krusher]

It seems to me that Miers has had a much better career as a  lawyer than Hillary has. Many people see Miers qualifications as "lacking" but side by side she has a much better legal resume than Clinton.  I only mention this because Hillary has been mentioned as a potential judge for the SCOTUS before and I don't recall any fuss over her qualifications.