Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on October 03, 2005, 07:14:50 AM
-
Damn, I sure hope so. She's making constitutionalist noises at her nomination acceptance speach...
Anybody think she'll wind up confirmed?
-
She`s in.
-
She has no judicial experience whatsoever. Her main qualification seems to be that she is loyal Bushie, having ridden his coattails from Dallas to D.C.
Lifetime appointment as a judge to the highest court in the land after never having made a single judicial decision. What a tremendous slap in the face it is to all the well-qualified, earnest candidates out there. Merit apparently means squat.
-
so is she a constitutionalist?
lazs
-
Originally posted by oboe
She has no judicial experience whatsoever. Her main qualification seems to be that she is loyal Bushie, having ridden his coattails from Dallas to D.C.
Lifetime appointment as a judge to the highest court in the land after never having made a single judicial decision. What a tremendous slap in the face it is to all the well-qualified, earnest candidates out there. Merit apparently means squat.
Maybe she's the sacrificial lamb put out there to draw all the lib froth, then withdrawn. The real one to come forth later.
Who knows.
Any one see the interview of a SCJ yesterday by snuffelup...er Stephanoplipolous? Forget which one it was, but the guy came across as a strict re-constructionist.
-
Rhendquist had never been a judge either.
There have been several justices appointed who were never judges before.
So it isn't like no one had ever nominated a non judge before, no new ground has been broken.
I don't necessarily agree with the choice.
I'd have preferred any of several others.
The other probable female/minority choices (since when is the U.S. Supreme Court a place to practice "affirmative action"?)
would have probably been fillibustered half to death, and both sides seemed at least somewhat willing to accept this one.
I'd like to have seen Bush nominate one of the previously fillibustered nominees for the lower court positions just to see the fight. Never mind the fact that they'd probably be better choices.
The current political scene has become such a useless and pointless quagmire that little good can come from it anyway. Why bother with a huge fight? Much as I think there is a need, I find myself wondering if anything worthwhile would come from it.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Maybe she's the sacrificial lamb put out there to draw all the lib froth, then withdrawn. The real one to come forth later.
Who knows.
It seems to me anyone who is against blatant cronyism, whether they be liberal, conservative or somewhere in the middle, should be put off by Bush's choice here. It's almost as if he really doesn't take his responsibilities seriously.
If she really is just a dummy nomination, with the real one to come later, then why? Wouldn't whipping up a liberal froth unify them and possibly prime a spirit of indignation against the real, forthcoming nominee? Why the ruse and waste of time? Bush has asked us all to conserve and be more efficient so I don't appreciate him wasting the government's time and resources on a joke nomination, if that's what it is.
I'm disappointed for the number of truly well-qualified, constructionist judges out there who deserve an opportunity to distinguish themselves and crown their careers with an appointment to the SC.
And what a public confirmation of the cynical notion that "its not what you know, its who you know". Put yourself in the role of a gradeschool teacher and explain this nomination to your bright-eyed students who've just finished the morning's recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. What do you say to them?
EDIT: Sorry Virgil, I missed your post. Thanks for pointing out that Rehnquist had never been a judge either. I'm sorry to hear its not a precedent. What a goofy situation. You'd think judicial experience would be a requirement for a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court.
-
I wonder about the validity of the 'blatant cronyism' being a big deal.
How many of us have gotten jobs based on knowing somebody that reccomended us?
Dunno if it's applicable as a 'bad thing'.. just something that 'is'. It's how the political and job market system works, yes?
-
Well, not me. I've had only 2 jobs in my adult working life, and neither of them came as a result of being the friend of the boss or hiring manager. I don't say that to brag, but that is simply what 'IS' in my experience (or was, as it were.) I was qualified, and did OK in the interview. But neither came with a guarantee of lifetime employment, or the responsibilities inherent to the position of SC justice.
If you want to say cronyism is neither right nor wrong, because it just 'is', I guess that's your prerogative. But it seems like an empty argument to me, because we could also say "the way things are in the world are just the way things are", but certainly that doesn't imply that there are no 'bad' things going on? Does it?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Rhendquist had never been a judge either.
There have been several justices appointed who were never judges before.
So it isn't like no one had ever nominated a non judge before, no new ground has been broken.
IIRC, O'Connor had never been a judge either.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Rhendquist had never been a judge either.
DING DING DING We have a winner
-
from about.com
1974 Sandra Day O'Connor was elected to a position of trial judge for Maricopa County and 5 years later was appointed by then Governor Bruce Babbitt to the Court of Appeals.
So O'Connor had served as a judge, and though nominated by Reagan, had not served as his personal counsel.
If the PIC of Air Force One was an appointed position, do you think they should limit themselves to candidates who are pilots with multiengine ratings? Or should somebody who once worked at an airline but is a personal friend of the President get the nod?
-
Oboe,
Just for you.....
(http://www.gianteagle.com/media/static_content/tastes_and_textures/images/Main_Cheese_Shot_293_x_260.jpg)
-
) Thanks, Bodhi! That cheese looks to be higher quality than mine whine, or is that Lindberger?
Listening to news radio and apparently there are no rigid qualifications for the position of SC justice. The President can nominate anyone he wants. Historically, about 20% of nominees have had no judicial experience -- and their lack of judicial perspective implies a perspective from a different direction. Maybe that's not all bad.
Cronyism makes no sense to me; it's foolishness evidenced most recently with Michael Brown's failure and removal as head of FEMA, but as Hangtime says, it is something that just 'is'.
Once again I can see I'm chopping but no chips are flyin' so I'll call it a day.
all.
-
Originally posted by oboe
It seems to me anyone who is against blatant cronyism, .
That term "blatant cronyism" cracks me up. Every single President hires and appoints the people who support him, translated they are all cronies. The milage the press and dems have been getting out of their talking points is breathtaking.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Damn, I sure hope so. She's making constitutionalist noises at her nomination acceptance speach...
Anybody think she'll wind up confirmed?
She will be confirmed.
I don't like her as a choice based on her backing of Judge Barefoot Sanders forced redistricting. It changed the dallas city council from one of the most effective to one of the biggest jokes in the country.
A good article from Law.com (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1102944936042)
It covers her resume
-
I'm not convinced oboe is wrong.. just trying to look at it from the other side.
If I had a freind recommend a guy for a job working for me vs some guy off the street with paper credentials, and given that the guy would be involved in something very very important to me, guess which I'd hire first.
Yes, I'd consider the 'guy off the street', but the guy known to my friend that had a glowing reccomendation certainly has a 'leg up'.
And, that's how it works, most places.
Not saying it's 'right'.. just that it 'is'.
-
Glad you found it amusing, Krusher.
I did use 'blatant' intentionally, because this appointment is not just for some undersecretary position in a nondescript federal agency in the executive branch, but rather a lifetime appointment to the top level of the judicial branch. The position is considered important enough to warrant the attention of the Senate, who are to give 'advice and consent' on nominations. So in that sense it strikes me as sortof extreme, in-your-face cronyism.
Although, at least the Senate will have a say. It's my understanding that some conservatives are more unhappy with her nomination than some liberals.
I'm kind of interested to see Toad weigh in on this - after all, he thought Robert's qualifications were a little light for an SC justice. And Miers has no judicial experience at all.
EDIT: I just skimmed the article referenced in Law.com, and I don't think its flattering toward her aptitude for being a SC Justice. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it's actually critical.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Glad you found it amusing, Krusher.
I did use 'blatant' intentionally, because this appointment is not just for some undersecretary position in a nondescript federal agency in the executive branch, but rather a lifetime appointment to the top level of the judicial branch. The position is considered important enough to warrant the attention of the Senate, who are to give 'advice and consent' on nominations. So in that sense it strikes me as sortof extreme, in-your-face cronyism.
Although, at least the Senate will have a say. It's my understanding that some conservatives are more unhappy with her nomination than some liberals.
I'm kind of interested to see Toad weigh in on this - after all, he thought Robert's qualifications were a little light for an SC justice. And Miers has no judicial experience at all.
EDIT: I just skimmed the article referenced in Law.com, and I don't think its flattering toward her aptitude for being a SC Justice. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it's actually critical.
As stated she is not a choice I support.
I would prefer a judge in their 40's or early 50's who is so hard core, right wing conservative that the mention of his name alone boils the blood of the left.
Mainly for the entertainment value :)
-
I'd hit it!:noid
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I'd hit it!:noid
That is soooo wrong!
aaagh
must ....get
image.......
OUT OF MY MIND!:huh
-
Best Miers quote:
"Bush is the smartest man Ive ever met"
:D
-
Originally posted by oboe
She has no judicial experience whatsoever. Her main qualification seems to be that she is loyal Bushie, having ridden his coattails from Dallas to D.C.
Lifetime appointment as a judge to the highest court in the land after never having made a single judicial decision. What a tremendous slap in the face it is to all the well-qualified, earnest candidates out there. Merit apparently means squat.
and she's the only one ever to be nominated and to possibly sit on the SC with no prior judicial experience....transparent man.
-
My 1st job was a delivery driving job, good pay, held it until I moved to germany 4 years later. But guess what? My cousin owns the joint, and my Dad was manager at that time, so do you know what I have to say about nepotism?:aok But you also know, that they didnt want to show me favoritism, so i got the crap routes, longest hours, and all that. But still I was consistantly in the top 5 drivers in that company.
So what if she has no legislating from the bench experiance, that is probably a good thing for someone nominated to the SC. Oh and not like there havent been precedents before.
oh and Oboe, most of yer well qualified and earnest canidates need a slap in the face. Preferably with a tuna.
-
From Encarta:
The Constitution does not specify formal qualifications for membership on the Supreme Court.
From the beginning, though, justices have all been lawyers, and most pursued legal and political careers before serving on the Court. Many justices served as members of Congress, governors, or members of the Cabinet. One president, William Howard Taft, was later appointed chief justice.
Some justices came to the Court from private law practice, and others were appointed from positions as law professors.
Many justices appointed in the second half of the 20th century had experience in the United States courts of appeal and other lower courts.
Only one justice, Charles Evans Hughes, served on the Court twice. President Taft appointed Hughes, then governor of New York, to the Court in 1910. Hughes gave up his Court seat in 1916 to run for president, but he lost in a close race against Woodrow Wilson. In 1930 President Herbert Hoover returned Hughes to the Court as chief justice.
Apparently you guys want to overturn established precedent. Shame, shame. What would happen to Roe v Wade if we started doing that?
:)
-
Rude,
Not sure I take your meaning, but it has been established that there have been other SC justices without judicial experience. It's not something I agree with, but do admit the additional perspective of a non-judge on the bench might bring an unexpected or intangible benefit. . I stand corrected on the point.
Pooh21,
Thanks, you might be right.
-
Just my opinion, but she is a fantastic choice. Based on what info is available, it sounds like she has all the qualities that a judge should have...she is very unemotional, exacting, meticulous, process driven. She will probably be far more moderate than anyone can guess because she won't allow her personal feelings or beliefs to interfere with the judging a case on its merits.
BTW, something like 40% of the previous SCOTUS Justices have had no previous experience on the bench...including John Marshall, Warren and Rehnquist...some of the greatest jurists to sit on the Supreme Court.
-
I had no idea who she was at 6:00 am this morning. After a whole day of exposue to everything but her menstral cycle I've come to some admittedly pre-mature and/or harsh conclusions.
*woof*
This broad is ugly. Basset hound ugly. I keep seeing video of her while one talking head or another is going on about her courage, record and predelictions and all I'm thinking is 'this mournful lookin old broad looks as courageous and strong as a thorougly worn out hound dog'.
*woof*
Now, an old dog can have tremendous wisdom and paitence. Who knows, mabe it even has it's own teeth and can bite. It'll prolly hunt, but I doubt as well as the fresh young pup that got the top spot.
Now, the dems seem to be smiling like they're enjoying the splash from the sudden arrival of the big dookie in the republican's collective cream of wheat. Perhaps the smiling may garner an instant karma kickback when she shocks both sides by wading in as anti-roe/wade.
Damn, I should drink single malts more often. I'm a mean drunk. :D
-
Never heard of her. Dunno a thing about her.
But the wingnuttery is having a total meltdown over it.... so for now, I'm diggin' it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Never heard of her. Dunno a thing about her.
It's the law of unintended consquences.
Both sides have made such dog and pony shows out of SC nominations that a new method of selection has evolved.
-
Maybe...
What's the "method?"
-
Voila. The Stealth Candidate. Did they really exist before nomination? Who are these people?
Roberts & Miers and, replacing the 85 year old Stephens, is ....
Joe Shlabotnik. Surely you've heard of him?
Bork's confirmation hearings showed what not to do. It has just taken a while for the art of picking the unknown and teaching him/her not to say anything while talking to develop.
-
Oh. Yeah....
I'm with ya there.
Coaching nominees is now a bonafide sustainable business.
What's been.... weird.... I guess... is that the nominating party has now tried to make it seem like an abberation, an unnacceptable invasion to ask these nominees what they think.
I don't think it's out of line to be like, "Who are you?" when it comes to lifetime appointments deciding the matters of men.
I know that you base your ballot on who the President nominates for the Supreme Court, Toad. Is this really what you had in mind?
-
LOL!
How do I know? They're Stealth Candidates!
Now, did I EXPECT the SC Senate confirmation hearings to devolve into meaningless procedural formalilty?
No, I didn't. But both parties see what's going on and see how it works. It is possible that this is just an evolution that adapts to an almost perfectly divided Senate but both parties are "going to school on it", you can count on that.
I don't think we'll see non-Stealth nominees anymore unless a particular party has a clear dominance of the Senate and can keep the Senators voting on party lines. In other words, if the balance is so lopsided that a President can put up an "in your face" nominee knowing his party will put it through without real opposition.
Still if I were forced to choose, I'd rather have Bush picking nominees than either Gore or Kerry.
I think you realize where the real power in the US "3 branch" government lies in our times/generation. Presidents come and go... Roberts may well be SC CJ for 30+ years.
-
Yeah that's great.
Your: "I vote for a President based not on the candidate but on who that candidate will nominate for the Supreme Court" sucks in about five thousand different ways.
-
Possibly.
But it's still the most important factor by a loooooong shot and beats picking a Prez any other way because all of the other ways suck in about 100,000 different ways..
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah that's great.
Your: "I vote for a President based not on the candidate but on who that candidate will nominate for the Supreme Court" sucks in about five thousand different ways.
As if thats not a legit thing. How many leftists were opposed to Bush in 2004 just because it was thought he may have a chance to appoint a few SC justices.
Lemme see how it went, "We cant let Bush win because he will appoint anti row v wade SC judges!!! Arghh!! End of the world yada yada yada etc..."
-
If your idea of a worthwhile vote is to give the nod to a guy who sends ya packin' into nutball and mismanaged excursion in the M.E. while adding trillions to the national debt; only tempered by the guy's "stealth" SC nominations... then you aren't a very hard guy to please.
-
Nash, you just seem to have a problem with the "long view".
You live in the "right now" and seem to need immediate gratification. That last locked thread of yours would be an example.
Yep, Iraq, the debt.. those are problems. But they aren't problems that will destroy the country. In fact, we've been both of those places before and come through. Just as these current problems will be resolved.
OTOH, the Constitution is the Nation. The Nation is the Constitution. The SC Justices are the Guardians of the Constitution.
Roberts will probably be there ~30 years, 4 times as long as any President can hold office. As SC CJ, he wields incredible power. The other 8 do as well. In things as seemingly insignificant as picking which cases they will hear in the session.
I just focus on what really matters.
Not which professional politician will live at 1600 Pennsylvania for 4 or possibly 8 years.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nash, you just seem to have a problem with the "long view".
You live in the "right now" and seem to need immediate gratification. That last locked thread of yours would be an example.
Yep, Iraq, the debt.. those are problems. But they aren't problems that will destroy the country. In fact, we've been both of those places before and come through. Just as these current problems will be resolved.
OTOH, the Constitution is the Nation. The Nation is the Constitution. The SC Justices are the Guardians of the Constitution.
Roberts will probably be there ~30 years, 4 times as long as any President can hold office. As SC CJ, he wields incredible power. The other 8 do as well. In things as seemingly insignificant as picking which cases they will hear in the session.
I just focus on what really matters.
Not which professional politician will live at 1600 Pennsylvania for 4 or possibly 8 years.
Nice meme. But you consructed it - and I ain't paying for it.
Fact is - and this may come as a shock to you - there's more to running a country than picking SC justices. Ignore it if you want, but it's still going to cost you blood and treasure.
Even if it were all about SC nominations - you yourself say that it's a total crapshoot... and that it's some"art" and it's basically out of everyone's hands. You don't even know this chick! Nobody does. And this is supposed to be the prime criteria in voting for a President?
Happy?
Meanwhile.... There's a whole ton of a lot going on, being decided upon by the folks you advocate for office, that are of a great deal of consequence.... and it hits you every time someone dies over there.......... and it has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
So.... no. You want to say that voting for the Presidency is really about voting for the Supreme Court. That's not right. Even you have no idea who these people are. But go ahead. Tell the widows and the broke how essential Harriet Miers is and tell them how important it was that they suffered under Bush for her nomination.
-
Originally posted by oboe
She has no judicial experience whatsoever.
Rehenquist and Warren never served as judges either.
-
As I said, it's that long view thing.
Lots of things have cost us blood and treasure. There will be more at some later date. Some will be at a President's direction, some won't.
Take a long view back and see how much blood and treasure we've spent. Then look at how much of it was spent on something, anything worthwhile. Was saving the snail darter in the TVA project worth the treasure?
Fact is, the country pretty much runs itself. Politician like to think they steer but in the long term they don't.
The nomination/confirmation process has, in this divided Senate, turned into a meaningless procedural formality.
Still there can be NO DOUBT that were Gore or Kerry picking the choice would be much more detrimental to the Constitution and thus the Nation's future. Well, no doubt for anyone who thinks the Constitution should be read and applied, not stretched to fit passing fancies.
So yeah... I'm happy in that regard.
that are of a great deal of consequence.... and it hits you every time someone dies over there
[/b]
Not really; you think it has a "great deal of consequence" but that's your short view.
Tell it to the widows and the broke.
The poor ye always have with you and everybody dies.
We're going to spend another few hundred billion rebuilding a city below sea level. What will the eventual, invevitable consequences of that decision be?
The US averages losing ~110 per day in motor vehicle accidents; about half of those are alcohol related.
Do something, quick.
-
Heh...
That's what's fascinating about folks like you.
You seem to think that everything runs on cruise control.
It don't.
-
Heh.
What I find fascinating about folks like you is the instant gratification requirement that leads to the short view.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ignore it if you want, but it's still going to cost you blood and treasure.
Blood and Treasure!
Haaaarrrrrrrr!
-
Okay spill it. What book are you into that has ya saying "short view/long view" way out of context?
"Instant gratification"..... heh, spare it for your kids.
-
Originally posted by Toad
...OTOH, the Constitution is the Nation. The Nation is the Constitution. The SC Justices are the Guardians of the Constitution...
Given your views on the importance of the SC Justices to the Nation, and after having expressed reservations about Roberts due to his sparse record of judicial decisions (only 40 IIRC), it surprises me how comfortable you seem with Ms Miers.
Here are what her critics said about her in the Law.com review:
"meticulous to a fault"
"can't see the forest for the trees"
"unable to make a decision"
Granted, her supporters said good things about her too, and she may well grow into the job and become everyone's darling SC justice. Who knows. But on the surface it appears she got the nod because as you say, she is a 'stealth' candidate with unknown views and no track record, and a Bush loyalist. Given the importance of the SC, doesn't that drive you nuts? Do you really trust Bush's judgement that much? And most of all, does the ringing endorsement of her by D-Sen Harry Reid concern you?
Just kinda surprised you aren't more critical of her; I thought my views would be more in line with your thinking on this one.
-
Actually, Nash, this may come as a complete surprise to you, but probably not a surprise at all to many of us. You are WRONG.
The legislative branch is NOT supposed to ask potential justices how they would vote on ANYTHING. Until recently, it was frowned upon and almost completely forbidden.
Only when it became obvious that the voting public refused to support the incredible swing to the left that the liberals want did THEY decide that it was acceptable to legislate from the bench, and that it was in fact an absolute necessity if they were to be able to further their agenda.
-
no surprise here but... nash is wrong and shortsighted... as toad points out..
We can survive any war debt... they go away... no social program ever goes away... it just gets more expensive and oppressive.
as for the supremes.... much more important than the pres.. it is one of the main reasons I voted for bush.
The second amendment and the slowing of the slide toward socialism are the most important things to me and my ilk...
we have faith that Bush will stack the SC deck for us with two or three candidates... outright or by stealth... I don't really care..
Can you imagine the candidates hillary would be nominating?
lazs
-
Originally posted by oboe
it surprises me how comfortable you seem with Ms Miers.
Are you suprised because I haven't come out an posted a blast of superheated rhetoric against her?
I'll leave that to others; as I've pointed out... and you've pointed out... we don't know anything about her really. And, given the lessons of the Bork confirmation hearings that have apparently finally evolved into a method of getting confirmed.... we probably never will know much about her until she gets on the bench.
Am I comfortable with that. Not really.
Am I more comfortable with Bush picking Miers than I am with Kerry picking someone? Yes, I am. I figure the Constitution is probably still far better off with someone like Miers than someone Kerry would pick. I just have this feeling Bush isn't going to pick a Barbra Boxer type woman for the Court. I think that would have been likely with Kerry.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"Instant gratification"..... heh, spare it for your kids.
But... tu es mi hijo, Luke!
Re-read your locked Iraq thread.... if that isn't a prime example than we're not speaking the same language.
-
Originally posted by Toad
But... tu es mi hijo, Luke!
Say it aint so. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Are you suprised because I haven't come out an posted a blast of superheated rhetoric against her?
I'll leave that to others; as I've pointed out... and you've pointed out... we don't know anything about her really. And, given the lessons of the Bork confirmation hearings that have apparently finally evolved into a method of getting confirmed.... we probably never will know much about her until she gets on the bench.
Am I comfortable with that. Not really.
Am I more comfortable with Bush picking Miers than I am with Kerry picking someone? Yes, I am. I figure the Constitution is probably still far better off with someone like Miers than someone Kerry would pick. I just have this feeling Bush isn't going to pick a Barbra Boxer type woman for the Court. I think that would have been likely with Kerry.
Superheated rhetoric? No, but a lack of thoughtful criticism and concern surprised me, until this last post. Before that your attitude struck me as, " if Bush picked her, she must be OK--it could be worse." I note your own Sen Brownback seems pretty perturbed at the choice.
What I would've liked to see is a well-credentialled (significant judicial experience and record implied here) moderate who would offend neither extreme so much as to be denied confirmation. I think that was the original intent of the "Senate giving advice and consent" clause-- to ensure radicals aren't stacked on the bench. Had Kerry picked a Barbara Boxer type woman, odds are she wouldn't have made it through the Senate confirmation vote, what with the Republican majority.
I think you are right that the confirmation process has devolved into sneaky gamesmanship and that is too bad, considering the gravity of what is at stake. Its seems doubtful that is what the founding fathers had in mind, anyway.
Something Laz said earlier concerns me, too - about our Nation's ability to survive "any" war debt. I think that is a reckless, fiscally irresponsible attitude to take. It is NOT a Conservative belief, IMO. Debts matter, and someday that fiscal recklessness may come down on top of us and bury us.
-
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.
-
oboe... war debts get paid off.... social programs never get paid off they just grow bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger and...
lazs
-
Hi Guys,
After the Miers nomination, what has me somewhat confused is why the left still hates Bush so much. What is it that makes this man seem conservative anyway?
Perhaps its because he's a member of the Republican party? So are Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter, and no one has ever accused them of being particularly conservative (incidently Bush supported both of them and AGAINST their conservative oponents - in fact I can't think of a single case where a liberal Republican incumbent has come up against a conservative challenger and the President hasn't backed the liberal).
Ok, so he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and hasn't raised taxes or been in favor of gun control. So far that qualifies him to be about as conservative as JFK was.
On the other hand though, he's socially moderate, never picks ideological fights with liberals on anything, has grown the government at a rate greater than both Carter and Clinton and spends like a drunken sailor. And now, given a Republican Senate and a Republican Congress and the opportunity to replace two Supreme Court judges - one a relatively Conservative positivist and the other a Moderate positivist judge, he nominates two cyphers whom almost every conservative in America rightly fears will revert to David Souter mode immediately after the President leaves office if not sooner.
Given that Clinton nominated two liberal positivists (including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, probably the most liberal judge ever to sit on the Court) and they both sailed through the Senate with nearly unanimous votes (both also applied the "keep your trap shut" methodology during questioning, this is hardly what one would expect a conservative to do. When a man picks a candidate even Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid are happy with, and almost every conservative leader [with the exception of those in the government who are prevented from speaking out against the President] in America is dismayed, how conservative can he be?
Is it that liberals have become so liberal that Bush, a moderate at best, seems conservative? If so, what would happen if America ever elected a real conservative? Civil War?
Just curious...
-
yah.. but is she a constructionist or a constitutionalist?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Guys,
After the Miers nomination, what has me somewhat confused is why the left still hates Bush so much. What is it that makes this man seem conservative anyway?
I don't think you understand...
I consider myself "left" and really don't have a big problem with Conservatism. Personally, if folks want guns, let them have 'em. Smaller government and fiscal responsibility? Well that's great. I mean, there's gonna be some disagreements along the way, but ultimately it's going to be on the margins.
I've never considered Bush to be a Conservative, however. I consider him a buffoon.... or... a drunk driver at the wheel. You see it in everything he does. Man, it'd be great if all he were was just a Conservative.
-
I'm trying to recall his role in the Terry Schiavo case - were those the actions of a social moderate?
I am both left and right of center depending in the issue. Bush has always seemed disingenuous to me. Just my opinion, but he seems reckless, arrogant, and shortsighted, with a self-confidence that seems completely underserved. I've been more or less politically aware since Pres Carter, and GW is the first President I recall not respecting as an individual. Unlike Nash, I don't sense buffoonery in him apart from his speaking and grammar - I always thought of him as 'user friendly' to his power base.
I often wonder the converse of Seagoon - why does the Right love Bush so much? Cue Ripsnort :)
btw I'm really interested in the Harry Reid angle. What does he know about her that made him even recommend her to Bush? That's really a surprising situation to me...
-
Originally posted by Toad
As I said, it's that long view thing.
The poor ye always have with you and everybody dies.
The US averages losing ~110 per day in motor vehicle accidents; about half of those are alcohol related.
Do something, quick.
Man....that's cold...even for you Toad. Soldiers dying has nothing in common with motor vehicle accidents.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Heh.
What I find fascinating about folks like you is the instant gratification requirement that leads to the short view.
What is the long view?
-
Originally posted by oboe
I'm trying to recall his role in the Terry Schiavo case - were those the actions of a social moderate?
I am both left and right of center depending in the issue. Bush has always seemed disingenuous to me. Just my opinion, but he seems reckless, arrogant, and shortsighted, with a self-confidence that seems completely underserved. I've been more or less politically aware since Pres Carter, and GW is the first President I recall not respecting as an individual. Unlike Nash, I don't sense buffoonery in him apart from his speaking and grammar - I always thought of him as 'user friendly' to his power base.
I often wonder the converse of Seagoon - why does the Right love Bush so much? Cue Ripsnort :)
btw I'm really interested in the Harry Reid angle. What does he know about her that made him even recommend her to Bush? That's really a surprising situation to me...
I dont see Bush being a bafoon as much as he seems to play the bafoon. This may be intentional. During even the first elections I remember them saying he liked to "lower expectations then exeeed them" Even Clinton warned his part back in the first election "Dont underestimate this guy"
Unlike Seagoon IMO Bush is right wing all the way.
I think both Regan and Clinton were far more moderate then either. Or at least played to the middle more, and better then Bush.
if I may inject.
Why does the right love Bush so much? Because he's right.
Same reason why the left would love a left winger like say. Hillary so much, Because she's left.
I've always maintained that the core base of either party wuld support Hitler. Ghengas Kahn or the devil himself if he was in ther party for no other reason then he was in their party.
I have a brother in law. lifetime union member and diehard democrat. whom I said exactly that to.
You would support Hitler if he was in your party and running for office"
His responce
"Thats right I would"
Why? I asked
"Because he's be a Democrat and I support my party"
I've made similar statements to die hard Republicans I know and have received pretty much the exact same answer
Personally I think Hillary would be just as poor a president as Bush. Im just happy the two cant run against each other or I might have to go move in with Nash or something (heh, now wouldnt that be interesting)
But anyway. as I said I dont think Bush is as stupid as much as he plays the part.
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
Man....that's cold...even for you Toad. Soldiers dying has nothing in common with motor vehicle accidents.
Is there any justification for people dying in alcohol related automobile crashes? Is there any benefit to society, to anyone?
Our soldiers are dying in Iraq in an attempt to give Iraq a chance at having representative government. Whether or not one agrees with the initial reasons for the invasion, there is at least potential benefit to the Iraqi people.
Yet the same folks that are demanding an immediate pullout from Iraq completely and totally ignore a much greater daily loss of life due to alcohol related car wrecks. Now that's cold.
-
more apt would be to ask.... is there any reason for soldiers to die in war games? Or soldiers to die off base in fast cars or motorcycles or from drugs or drink?
but... is this judge gonna be on the right side of the second amendment? that is the important question.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
What is the long view?
On Supreme Court nominations?
The long view is that the Constitution is the most important aspect of our government.
Presidents come and go, some good and some bad. Short of world-wide nuclear war there really isn't much a President can do in 4 or 8 years that can't be corrected. The President has limited powers to affect the daily life of the citizenry. He proposes plans/ideas/policies but he cannot implement them.
Congress is the "action arm" of the government. It implements plans/ideas/policies and pays for them. Congress can and does have powers to affect the daily life of the citizenry. Their legislation can be good or bad.
The Supreme Court is the arbiter of good or bad law. They hold the Congress in check with respect to the Constitution. They can strike down "bad law" that isn't within the bounds of the Constitution.
As I've said before, the President proposes, Congress disposes and the Supreme Courts rules.
-
She was on the Dallas City Council. It is the mother of all trainwrecks. That alone should bar her from holding any other office.
-
Hi Oboe,
Originally posted by oboe
I'm trying to recall his role in the Terry Schiavo case - were those the actions of a social moderate?
During the Schiavo debacle, Bush issued one public statement supporting the Terry's right not to be starved, and then signed the hastily cobbled together "Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act" and then failed to enforce it. Essentially, he tried to play to both sides of the issue, making supportive gestures towards Terry's parents in order not to alienate his base, but not actually spending the political capital that would have been necessary to actually intervene. His actions ended up frustrating conservatives to no end, not only on the right to life issues, but because by not acting he reinforced the notion that all "life issues" are to be decided in the courts by judges rather than by the nations elected officials. In essence, his decision confirmed the rationale for the Roe decision.
That refusal to "pull the trigger" on anything except Iraq and to actually confront the ideological issues is one of the many things that makes Bush more of a politician than a conservative statesman in the mold of say Reagan, Thatcher, and Churchill. The statesman says, "if something is right I will do everything legal in my power to bring it about, no matter what it costs me" So, for instance, Churchill opposed the appeasement and disarmament policies of successive conservative administrations because he rightly saw that the rise of Nazi Germany was a grave threat and a great evil that would someday have to be confronted militarily. His decision to do so cost him so greatly that he ended up in the "political wilderness" estranged from his own party, but history has vindicated him. Bush, on the other hand, constantly "blinks", perhaps in an effort to "go along to get along."
A far better indicator of this tendency than say the Schiavo case would be his actions on the gay marriage issue. As you are probably aware, opposing gay marriage is not exactly a politically risky action. As statewide referendums have shown, even in otherwise blue states, a majority of Americans are against them. The vast majority of Republicans are against them, and yet Bush remained almost silent on the issue, making vague noises, until finally coming out in favor of Gay Civil unions.
He is a politician, therefore he constantly seeks consensus, which inevitably involves making compromises, but what irritates conservatives is that as people who believe both in standing on principle and in objective truth they hold that the worst approach to deciding between two positions is to adopt a position in-between both. To put it more simply, in an argument between two sides where one insists that 2+2=4 and the other who insists that 2+2=5 the correct approach is not to agree to 4.5 as a compromise answer. So, for instance, a conservative says that if we are going to remain true to our principles we have to cut taxes and cut spending on entitlements (or at least freeze their growth). Bush, as a Moderate, has been unwilling to expend the political capital and enter the fight necessary to cut entitlements, and as a result he has adopted a Cut Taxes/Grow Entitlements approach that will send deficits through the roof. Whatever you believe the correct answer to the tax and spend question is, it certainly isn't that one.
A moderate wants consensus, seeks compromise, and wants everyone to like him, forgetting or not realizing that the men who end up most admired are those who are remembered and honored for the strength of their convictions and that no one admires a man whose backbone is made of rubber. Even Gandhi didn't want some independence for India and some some rule by Britain, he campaigned tirelessly, and worked step by step towards total independence.
I know this won't be a popular opinion, and for that I'm sorry. I don't gain any great joy in speaking highly critically of anyone, much less the president. But I'm not beholden to the Republican party and I'm not a believer in compromise over issues of great importance. I believe firmly that no man should go against his conscience, if its right, then do it and let God and history be the judge. Enough with pragmatism, compromise, and namby, pambyism.
- SEAGOON
-
I'm wondering what Harry Reid is up to. Does he really support the nomination of Meir or his he doing so simply to divide the Republicans even further on the issue?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
I know this won't be a popular opinion, and for that I'm sorry. I don't gain any great joy in speaking highly critically of anyone, much less the president. But I'm not beholden to the Republican party and I'm not a believer in compromise over issues of great importance. I believe firmly that no man should go against his conscience, if its right, then do it and let God and history be the judge. Enough with pragmatism, compromise, and namby, pambyism.
- SEAGOON
Kinda frightening, Seagoon. I understand what yer gettin' at, but... well, look at it like this:
51% of the country likes many things about X.
49% of the country likes many things about Y.
Neither group likes everything about either X and Y.
So just because a coupla hundred thousand more people like more things about X than Y, should that mean that everything about X be jammed down everyone's throats? Mathematically, that would disenfranchise much more of the population than it would please.
"Pragmatism [and] compromise" is not the weakness but the strength of a Democracy. To find its counterpoint, look to a dictatorship.
But your perspective is different, and it's easy to see why. When it comes to religion, there is no middle ground - everything is absolute. There is no half-sin, for example, nor any sub-clauses etched into the ten commandments. It's either right or it's wrong.
So if I may be so bold as to take a stab at explaining your disappointment with Bush...
You got used. Sure, you were flooded with cheap little brochures hastilly passed around in your circle with the constant assurances that "We're with you.... and they're most certainly not." And you get the odd born again dime-store phrase sprinkled hither and thither to make you think: "Finally, our President is one of us."
But he aint one of you. It turns out, he has got to govern a country that, collectively, holds a kazillion personal beliefs held with no less conviction than your own, including the millions upon millions upon millions of those with equally as strong a conviction in their belief of nothing.
Do not think for a second that they didn't know that when you were enlisted for his election. You got used. And now? YOU'RE the problem. They can't possibly do what you're asking, yet they can't completely alienate you either. It's like an albatross around their necks. They are positively scrambling but there's no way out when it comes to absolutes. Like you said - you cannot accept compromise.
It's basically like a deal with the devil. They needed you in order to win an election. Now that they've won? You've become a liability they can't shake.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh. Yeah....
I'm with ya there.
Coaching nominees is now a bonafide sustainable business.
What's been.... weird.... I guess... is that the nominating party has now tried to make it seem like an abberation, an unnacceptable invasion to ask these nominees what they think.
I don't think it's out of line to be like, "Who are you?" when it comes to lifetime appointments deciding the matters of men.
I know that you base your ballot on who the President nominates for the Supreme Court, Toad. Is this really what you had in mind?
You're right--Clinton had no qualms what-so-ever about nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a PRESIDENT OF THE ACLU, and only 3 GOP senators voted against her--Bush surrendered without even a skirmish--ya cant show weakness in politics
-
Winner takes all, its always been that way in the USA in political elections. By winner, I mean that party that won and by take all I mean they get the bully pulpit and the strenghth of the office of president and related appointed positions. One of those powere is nominating wjover you bthink is good for whatever post is open to such nominations - then congrsss gets to vote on that nomination if applicable. Nothing new about this, nothing there to disenfranchise people.
-
I aint whinin... and in fact, I aint even suprised.
The Bush team is doing the whining here..... and to me it sounds like the noises ya make after being rudely jostled awake, right at the moment, after fending off 6 foot bunnies and burrowing through keyholes, when you and Cameron were finally about to get carnal.
-
Hi Seagoon -
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I do remember something about Bush before the election promising to come out strongly against gay marriage, and then sitting on his hands regarding the issue after he won. I don't know that I'd call that moderation as much as simple political duplicity or manipulation.
I can see that you have a dim view of moderates, and I won't try to change you mind on the matter. Suffice to say that your arithmetic example could just as easily have been represented by the extremes positing 2+2=3 on one side and 2+2=5 on the other, in which case the middle ground answer 2+2=4 would be quite satisfactory. Alas, political disagreements aren't mathematic problems where the true correct answer can be known. All we generally have are two different sides with their conflicting beliefs.
To me, the moderate seeks to make progress by building on any common ground between the two often stalemated extremes. That is distinct from the namby pambyist, who tries to make progress by simultaneously giving in to both extremes. :)
btw, I think Nash hit it right on about the importance of compromise in Democracy. Think about Iraq for a second - is there any doubt that in order to make Democracy function there it will require a spirit of compromise between the 3 different factions? I am sure you want democracy to take root in Iraq and the Middle East. Yet look at your own stubborn extremism here. Are you not espousing the kind of unyielding extremist attitude that would doom the fledgling democracy in Iraq to failure?
-
The Republicans have pandered to Christian conservatives in the same way the Democrats have pandered to the ultra liberals. A lot of talk but not much action. Actually, a bit more action from the Democrats, but hardly anything a true Nader supporter would appreciate.
In the end Christian Conservatives are a powerful voting block, but more so are suburban soccer moms and other moderate/centrist Republicans voting on autopilot as long as things don't get too extreme.
What gets me, is there was a fair amount of evidence that it was for real with Bush, that he was born again. That he would walk the walk. He went to bible study for two years or more before he even got into politics. I think it was even before the whole Christian Coalition era (may be wrong).
I have to suspect that she is far more conservative than most conservatives know. Or not. Puzzling.
So far the only conservative groups I can see that should be happy with him are Fortune 500 company execs and that top .5 percent.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I have to suspect that she is far more conservative than most conservatives know. Or not. Puzzling.
Charon
Perzactly.
-
Thank codz your vote was reserved for such ambiguity.
-
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..
Originally posted by Nash
Kinda frightening, Seagoon. I understand what yer gettin' at, but... well, look at it like this:
51% of the country likes many things about X.
49% of the country likes many things about Y.
Neither group likes everything about either X and Y.
So just because a coupla hundred thousand more people like more things about X than Y, should that mean that everything about X be jammed down everyone's throats?
[/b]
Well Nash, if I were materialist and I thought that almost everything outside of perhaps mathematics came down to personal preferences, I would agree with you. Trouble is, I'm not. I believe that some things really are objectively wrong and others really are objectively right. At one time, prior to the rise of relativism, a belief in objective truth was actually the majority report in Western civilization. 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.
Let me give you a practical example of this principle: slavery. The practice of manstealing was not right when the majority of people in the United States endorsed it, and it did not become wrong only when a majority of people turned against it. Also, the correct answer to the problem of slavery was never somewhere in-between X (Slavery) and Y (no slavery). Rather, the correct answer is Y, regardless of how many people object that they prefer X and that the "Y-ers" are ramming it down their throats.
Now there are certainly many issues of indifference over which various groups can compromise, and issues which really are simply about preference (sadly these still make up 90% of the arguments that go on in households, churches, workplaces, and bars) but the Supreme Court for instance seldom is called upon to decide issues of indifference (no one ever asked for a Supreme Court decision about whether Blue is better than Purple for instance). They are routinely called upon to render decisions in cases that deal with fundamental ethical issues such as those which deal with life and liberty.
"Pragmatism [and] compromise" is not the weakness but the strength of a Democracy. To find its counterpoint, look to a dictatorship.
Actually, dictatorships are an example of what is called "will to power." They occur when either a group or an individual uses power to force their own preferences upon all the people regardless of whether they are wrong or right. Personally, I'm not a fan of pure democracy either, because they tend to lead to tyranny of the masses and demogoguery. I like constitutional Republics like the US was designed to be.
The genius of the constitutional republic is not in consensus building, it is that theoretically a constitution protects both objective truth from being easily overturned at the whim of the majority AND the rights of the minority are protected and maintained even when their views are unpopular. 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).
So if I may be so bold as to take a stab at explaining your disappointment with Bush...
You got used. Sure, you were flooded with cheap little brochures hastilly passed around in your circle with the constant assurances that "We're with you.... and they're most certainly not." And you get the odd born again dime-store phrase sprinkled hither and thither to make you think: "Finally, our President is one of us."
I can understand why you might think that was the case, but actually I've never made my mind up about a candidate based on a Christian Coalition voters guide, nor do they tend to get passed around in my circle. I would also be absolutely opposed to their being distributed in the congregation I pastor. I also never thought of the President as "one of us." I accepted that his worldview was closer to mine than say, Kerry's, but I also realized that politically speaking, we had some huge differences.
Also, please understand, while some evangelicals might, I don't support politicians merely because they claim to be evangelicals, and I certainly wouldn't support a candidate for the supreme court merely because he or she professes to be an evangelical. I have many evangelical friends who are in fact politically liberal (in fact I have a few who are hippies). Our bible study on Friday is made up mostly of evangelicals who have never voted Republican in their lives. I love them as brothers and hope to spend enternity with them, but I wouldn't support them if they ran for elected office. In the same way, I like Antonin Scalia because he is an established, qualified, and tested originalist, even though he has never professed to be an evangelical, while I don't like Miers and don't think she should be on the court, even though she professes to be an evangelical.
Anywho, Nash, got to stop now but thanks for continuing to write and more importantly, to bear with my excessively long rambles...
- SEAGOON
-
We have a major problem. The two party system has spun out of control. We now have a problem that the founding fathers never envisioned.
For example, for those of us who are moderately conservative, we are quite unhappy with Bush, more so now than ever. But we've had Kerry, Gore, and Dean as the only alternatives. Sorry, but despite my currently high level of dissatisfaction with Bush, none of those three is even a REMOTELY viable alternative. As such, those of us who are moderate conservatives cannot cut our support for the Republicans, because we simply could not tolerate the alternatives. It leaves us unable to get the Republicans back in check.
I support Bush only on his foreign policy, and even then I feel he is far less than aggressive and assertive enough.
His level of spending and toleration of pork on the domestic side is absurd, and far from conservative.
His stand on illegal immigration is intolerable, and inexcuseable.
His lack of willingness to pursue tax cuts and social security privatization sucks as well.
It appears he lacks the will to stand up and go toe to toe with the Democrats on the issue of judges from the lower level all the way to the SC.
The current group of Republicans in the legislature are no better, and that wimp Frist I voted for is no exception. They can't spend fast enough, they don't back Bush enough on what I do agree with, and they won't go toe to toe with the Democrats either.
Unfortunately, and unbelieveably, the Democrats are even freaking worse. They've never met a social program they didn't want to spend every dollar on. They've never met a tax they don't love. And they lack the guts and the will to defend this country from anyone or anything. They want to take my guns, my cars, my truck, and every dollar I have. Someone attacks us, and they wring their hands and whimper "why do they hate us?" like a bunch of simpering panty waste cowards.
So there it is. We're stuck with this runaway Bravo Sierra fiasco we have for a government, without enough leverage to get any of the worthless freakin salamanders back in line.
-
Savage,
I agree with alot of what you say in general about the state of politics in the two-party system, but I can't help thinking its our own fault. Every vote for one of the major parties reinforces the status quo.
In the end, the People do have the power to end this mess by supporting a 3rd party, but so far too many seem unwilling to make the temporary sacrifice of allowing gains by the opposition party.
It'll take more than one election cycle to change this mess, and after 5 years under a Republican president and Congress, I look at the deficit and mess we are in and think the Democrats couldn't have screwed up much worse.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Guys,
After the Miers nomination, what has me somewhat confused is why the left still hates Bush so much. What is it that makes this man seem conservative anyway?
Perhaps its because he's a member of the Republican party? So are Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter, and no one has ever accused them of being particularly conservative (incidently Bush supported both of them and AGAINST their conservative oponents - in fact I can't think of a single case where a liberal Republican incumbent has come up against a conservative challenger and the President hasn't backed the liberal).
Ok, so he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and hasn't raised taxes or been in favor of gun control. So far that qualifies him to be about as conservative as JFK was.
On the other hand though, he's socially moderate, never picks ideological fights with liberals on anything, has grown the government at a rate greater than both Carter and Clinton and spends like a drunken sailor. And now, given a Republican Senate and a Republican Congress and the opportunity to replace two Supreme Court judges - one a relatively Conservative positivist and the other a Moderate positivist judge, he nominates two cyphers whom almost every conservative in America rightly fears will revert to David Souter mode immediately after the President leaves office if not sooner.
Given that Clinton nominated two liberal positivists (including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, probably the most liberal judge ever to sit on the Court) and they both sailed through the Senate with nearly unanimous votes (both also applied the "keep your trap shut" methodology during questioning, this is hardly what one would expect a conservative to do. When a man picks a candidate even Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid are happy with, and almost every conservative leader [with the exception of those in the government who are prevented from speaking out against the President] in America is dismayed, how conservative can he be?
Is it that liberals have become so liberal that Bush, a moderate at best, seems conservative? If so, what would happen if America ever elected a real conservative? Civil War?
Just curious...
If that is accurate, answer this:
Why do you he support a dishonest conservative then? A man constantly playing to his base then as you say deceiving it? Is this a tenet of Christ's? Support dishonesty for cheap political gain?
The idea that Liberal is somehow bad or that liberalism cannot be trusted is the culmination of years of hate campaigning, nothing more. So hatred, too, is a tenet of Christ's?
Odd how men always pervert Christ to get what they want from life. Odd, and really scary too. But then, heck why be surprised? As Christ said, the Pharisees should have known better.
Harry
-
Originally posted by Nash
Thank codz your vote was reserved for such ambiguity.
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.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
If that is accurate, answer this:
Why do you he support a dishonest conservative then?
Harry
He already answered it:
I also never thought of the President as "one of us." I accepted that his worldview was closer to mine than say, Kerry's,
A whole lot of people probably felt like that. In general, I suspect most US voters don't vote "for" someone... they vote "against" someone. They pick the lesser of two weevils.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Savage,
I agree with alot of what you say in general about the state of politics in the two-party system, but I can't help thinking its our own fault. Every vote for one of the major parties reinforces the status quo.
In the end, the People do have the power to end this mess by supporting a 3rd party, but so far too many seem unwilling to make the temporary sacrifice of allowing gains by the opposition party.
It'll take more than one election cycle to change this mess, and after 5 years under a Republican president and Congress, I look at the deficit and mess we are in and think the Democrats couldn't have screwed up much worse.
We tried the temporary sacrifice. Remember Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot? We got 8 years of Clinton.
Think about what would have happened this time. NADER!?!?!?! 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.
Is it our fault? Damned right it is. We let it go on too long and go to far.
Nope, the only chance, and only choice, we have is to start grassroots and start taking them out at the lower levels and in the primaries.
The left is suffering the same fate. Only they had a much more palatable choice in the primaries, Lieberman. I could almost vote for him, in fact, I might vote for him if he ran against McCain. They've got wingnuts like Dean, Kerry, and Clinton running the party. The only thing they've got going for them is Teddy is too drunk and too worried about the Kennedy curse to run.
-
they've also got dickwads like Sharpton and Jackson.
How in hell can you support a party that supports party members that promote racist dogma?
Dems are doa untill they 'cleanse' the ranks.
-
the left is so evil that we have to take the minor devils like bush and embrace him. We really have no choice if we are against socialism and constitutionalists.
nash... it doesn't matter about your vote anyway... you don't get a vote and you don't get a say on how we vote or how the process is accomplished.
that it the heart of it... most foreighners here are mad at the constituionalists and republicans because they seem us as impediments to them getting a say in how the U.S. is run. They want a "one world government" that brings everyone down to the same socialist level of misery.... sorta like... everyone in the world with british teeth say.
lazs
-
I was going to leave Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakahn out of it, despite the mainstream left's undying devotion to them. Those clowns and those who go along with them do FAR more to damage their own than a legislature full of klansmen EVER could.
lazs2, I think you meant "if we are against socialism and we are constitutionalists" or did I read that wrong?
Oh, and I agree, ANY Supreme Court justice who, as part of their decision states "(insert name of foriegn country here) does ______ with regards to this matter and we should follow their lead" should be immediately impeached, and then flogged daily for a month. Their job is to judge legal matters on the basis of how they fit with the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES and not how it fits their personal views or what the rest of the world does.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
We tried the temporary sacrifice. Remember Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot? We got 8 years of Clinton.
Yes, 8 years of personal moral equivocation, economic prosperity, good relations around the globe and resolve to war when needed only.
Gee, today we have adminstration wide and deep congressional moral equivocation, guys being arrested in the white house for hampering investigations, Congressmen indicted, screwed up wars of the choosing of the president, economic uncertainty, zero diplomatic bright spots oh, and rampant cronyism!
Gee, only Bush could make one long for a Clinton White House.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Yes, 8 years of personal moral equivocation, economic prosperity, good relations around the globe and resolve to war when needed only.
Gee, today we have adminstration wide and deep congressional moral equivocation, guys being arrested in the white house for hampering investigations, Congressmen indicted, screwed up wars of the choosing of the president, economic uncertainty, zero diplomatic bright spots oh, and rampant cronyism!
Gee, only Bush could make one long for a Clinton White House.
Sakai
He might make YOU long for Clinton, but not me.
Clinton:
Rode the wave of economic prosperity brought on by the Reagan era.
Gave us World Trade Center incident #1, the cut and run/no armor Mogadeshu Somalia incident, the U.S.S. Cole incident, the embassy attacks, and the great responses to all of the above. Not to mention a host of other brilliant foreign policy successes.
The vast majority of the build up to 11 September 2001.
The sale of secrets to China.
The escalation of violence in Isreal to a scale not seen since the last open war.
The worst government attacks on honest gun owners since LBJ and the gun control act of 1968.
The greatly emboldened Saddam Hussein.
The free roaming Osama bin Laden.
A front woman for the ACLU on the bench of the Supreme Court.
Good relations around the world? Yeah, Arrafat and Hussien LOVED the guy. Along with everyone else longing to hogtie the U.S. and use it for a doormat. He was a favorite of Chirac too, and Kofie Annan. Those are some GLOWING endorsements from some STELLAR world leaders.
Yeah, real winner that Clinton guy.
-
Originally posted by Nash
51% of the country likes many things about X.
49% of the country likes many things about Y.
Neither group likes everything about either X and Y.
the voter turnout was around 55%.
easy now nash, you're giving laz a rash.
well, at least clinton didn't give known terrorist wmd.
-
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...
-
^^^^ 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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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! :rofl
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Well said Seagoon.
-
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
-
Well put Seagoon and succinctly too.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Krusher, the part of your post about Hillary seems outrageously unbelieveable to me. I'm no fan of Hillary, but I know people raise a stink at whatever she does - be it her actions as a control freak First Lady or running for Senator from a State in which she hadn't lived. She just rarely fails to draw criticism.
Who mentioned her as a candidate for SCOTUS and when was it, do you recall?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
We tried the temporary sacrifice. Remember Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot? We got 8 years of Clinton.
Actually I think had Perot Not gotten in. the out,then back in the race again he stood a good chance of winning.
And it was that more then anything that cost him the election.
I voted Perot. He just made the most sense to me. and I wanted to do my part to send a message that the current candidates in my view were unacceptable.
When Clinton was elected to his first termI turned to my wife and said these exact words.
"Mark my words. Before this man is out of office he will be impeached"
A prophecy that later played out ,though not for reasons I would have suspected at the time.
-
Originally posted by 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.
Well she wasnt nominated first of all and she cant move without the right throwing punches.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Krusher, the part of your post about Hillary seems outrageously unbelieveable to me. I'm no fan of Hillary, but I know people raise a stink at whatever she does - be it her actions as a control freak First Lady or running for Senator from a State in which she hadn't lived. She just rarely fails to draw criticism.
Who mentioned her as a candidate for SCOTUS and when was it, do you recall?
last year when Kerry was running for president more than one source mentioned Hillary as a potential SCJ. That being said, my post was more concerned with their head to head legal credentials.