Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on September 12, 2005, 07:41:27 PM
-
I really liked what he had to say today: (paraphrase)
No one goes to a game to see an umpire they go for the players. Judges are Umps, we don't make the rules we uphold them and make sure they're followed. We call balls and strikes, not bat and throw pitches.
Sounds like a good canidate to me.
-
And the democratic rebuttle:
In their opening remarks, the two top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee invoked the tragedy as a reminder of the gap between rich and poor and the need for a Supreme Court that wants to close that gap.
"Today, the devastation, despair facing millions of our fellow Americans in the Gulf region is a tragic reminder of why we have a federal government, why it's critical that our government be responsive," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and ranking minority member of the panel.
"We need the federal government for our protection and security, to cast a lifeline to those in distress, to mobilize better resources beyond the ability of any state and local government -- all of this for the common good."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, said lessons should be learned from the hurricane.
"The powerful winds and flood waters of Katrina tore away the mask that has hidden from public view the many Americans who are left out and left behind," he said. "As one nation under God, we cannot continue to ignore the injustice, the inequality and the gross disparities that exist in our society."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050912-031431-6476r.htm
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I really liked what he had to say today: (paraphrase)
No one goes to a game to see an umpire they go for the players. Judges are Umps, we don't make the rules we uphold them and make sure they're followed. We call balls and strikes, not bat and throw pitches.
Sounds like a good canidate to me.
I heard the speech on the radio. At the end, I couldn't remember a single thing he said. All in all, it was a "safe" speech.
-
Every umpire's gotta different strike zone.
-
Blah blah blah ted kennedy. As if he'd give up anything himself.
-
Rule 2.00 - The Strike Zone
The Strike Zone is defined as that area over homeplate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
The strike zone is clearly defined in the written rules. We just need to get rid of those activist umpires that try to stretch it or shrink it.
;)
-
I don't think I've ever faced one of those so-called "activist umpires." Because they all were. You just had to know in what area you could bend the rules. :)
-
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.'
If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation.
For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
The guy was awfully smart. Too bad it turned out the way he feared.
-
Yup - I'm hard pressed to come up with the names of any contemporary equivalent to those guys. What happened?
-
I heard the speech on the radio. At the end, I couldn't remember a single thing he said. All in all, it was a "safe" speech. - Sandman
Brief, too. I certainly appreciated it, especially after all the hot air.
In fact, it was far more salient than any words I heard from a Senator, left or right.
-
It's all the southerly migration of liberals ;)
Sheila: Times have changed
Our kids are getting worse
They won't obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Liane: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: No, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flappin' heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: We need to form a full assault
Everyone: It's Canada's fault!
Sharon: Don't blame me
For my son Stan
He saw the darn cartoon
And now he's off to join the Klan!
Liane: And my boy Eric once
Had my picture on his shelf
But now when I see him he tells me to **** myself!
Sheila: Well, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: It seems that everything's gone wrong
Since Canada came along
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Copy Guy: They're not even a real country anyway
Ms. McCormick: My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer, it's a-true
Instead he burned up like a piggy on a barbecue
Everyone: Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctors who allowed him to expire?
Sheila: Heck no!
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their hockey hullabaloo
Liane: And that ***** Anne Murray too
Everyone: Blame Canada
Shame on Canada
Ohhh...
The smut we must stop
The trash we must bash
Laughter and fun
Must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Marshall expanded the Court's power... and got away with it. Hasn't been the same since.
To sum up, by clipping from a review of a book on the subject... Marshall outsmarted Jefferson.
In 1801, at the end of Adams's presidency, Marshall accepted the Supreme Court chief justice's position and Jefferson became the nation's third president. That set the stage for years of competition between the two philosophies of government, especially the two visions of the judiciary, represented by the principal antagonists of Simon's history.
Simon deftly explains how Jefferson and Marshall maintained a faeade of civility in their public pronouncements while unleashing blistering mutual vituperation privately. Ultimately, as Simon demonstrates, Marshall prevailed. His technique was subtlety itself.
In his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Marshall gave an ostensible victory to Madison (Jefferson's Secretary of State) but reached that result by asserting the authority of the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. That assertion had far-reaching implications for consolidating the federal government's power.
Once the Supreme Court became the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, the court repeatedly exercised its authority to invalidate state laws and court decisions inconsistent with the federal Constitution.
-
But the Constitution itself is a legal document.
If not up for "interpretation" by the SC, then by whom?
If Congress passes laws not in accordance with the Constitution, and if the Judiciary cannot - for lack of a better term - call the dudes on it, then what prevents the Constitution's complete erosion?
Who then upholds it?
In whose hands would you entrust with it?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
Touchy Touchy...lol.
-
No Nash, that's not what we are talking about.
A supreme court judge's only job is to determine the constitutionality of a case.
Activist judges go out and rewrite laws. They don't say, "No, that law is no good."
They say, "No, here's what the law should be."
-
Yeah whatever laser.
Anyways, Toad.....
-
TJ's offered quite a few solutions. He was pretty P.O.'d at what Marshall had gotten away with in several decisions.
One was:
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party?
The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs.
And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
I kind of like that one. Clear the air, let the people speak. Would have been better if they'd have done it in Jefferson's time, though, while the memory of the Revolution was fresh and people understood governmental oppression.
Here's another one of his that I think has real merit.
"Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct at regular periods under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative houses." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389
More directly though, Jefferson's solution to Judicial usurpation of the Constitution was States Rights. This article is pretty good, although you have to read it all and kind of slowly to get the picture.
What States Rights Really Mean (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods33.html)
The "Cliffs Notes" is this:
...To the suggestion that the Supreme Court was the ultimate arbiter, the drafters of these documents had yet another question: how can the federal courts function as impartial umpires between the federal government and the states when they themselves are part of the federal government?...
...The primary issue was the acts’ dubious constitutionality. Jefferson based part of his objection on their violation of the First Amendment, but noted that they violated the Tenth Amendment as well. Nowhere had the states delegated any authority to the federal government to pass legislation pertaining to the freedom of speech or press. In doing so, then, the federal government had encroached on a state prerogative. For Jefferson, who spoke of binding men by the chains of the Constitution, immediate action was necessary lest such federal usurpations begin to multiply....
....As far as Jefferson could see, the only way in which a state could both remain in the Union and retain its liberties in the face of an unconstitutional act on the part of the federal government was for the state to declare that by virtue of its being unconstitutional, the federal action was null and void and would not be enforced within the borders of that state. (He and others did indeed entertain and reply to the various objections to such an idea.)...
That's a pretty radical idea, isn't it? And put forth by the guy that (mostly) wrote the Constitution. We've drifted a long way from where he intended us to go.
Sure puts the Civil War in a different light. Wonder what TJ would have told Abe about the states rights to secede. ;)
-
Do you want for your country a Europe? Many regions divided? Picking and choosing those laws that are acceptable and discarding those that aren't? Would you be as strong?
Because:
"...The only way in which a state could both remain in the Union and retain its liberties in the face of an unconstitutional act on the part of the federal government was for the state to declare that by virtue of its being unconstitutional, the federal action was null and void and would not be enforced within the borders of that state.
That's just way of saying "If our state does not agree with the laws, then those laws will not apply within this state." But that leaves us with the question: What is a state if not for the common laws that bind states together for their collective good?
Taken to the extent, if every state picked and chose only those laws which were acceptable to them, then what would the country be but a collection of regions divided, not unlike Europe?
As long as you can (and I'm not making that assumption) agree that as a nation there ought be binding national laws, who then is best suited to look after them? The Congress? Or the Courts, whose members the Congress ultimately decides?
-
I don't think Jefferson ever thought the States would become this subservient to the Federal government. I believe he'd be amazed at where we are now and wonder how the heck that happened.
His solution was to ask the people whether they wanted the SC or the Congress to decide issues of Constitutionality. Didn't happen, unfortunately.
He also never meant the government to remain as static as it has.
We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the habitants of another country.
Thomas Jefferson
-
Interesting quote, though I'm not completely sure what it means. Is it in fact making the case for the Constitution being a living document... with each successive generation interpreting it as they may? I'm no doubt getting it wrong...
But to the core issue, you would have Congress be the final arbiters (and ultimately, the unchecked amenders) of the Constitution, not the courts. There was much that I'm sure Jefferson didn't anticipate. The swarm of lobbyists, for example. I don't particularly like Congress' track record - especially of late - so I cannot imagine giving the Congress carte blanche when it comes to the Constitution. I guess we just disagree here.
-
Personally, there is a lot of stuff I will likely disagree with from Roberts, some I will likely agree with. And maybe even some positions mainstream Republicans will disagree with like social issues near and dear to the Soccer Moms and perhaps some privacy issues.
He SEEMs actually a more moderate candidate than one might expect (though that may not be true in practice) and you can't off hand assume that he personally agreed 100 percent with the cases he argued for others.
Regardless, this is one of the potential issues with any presidential election (and clearly understood with this one), the candidate no doubt represents Bush's core, stated platform and Bush won. Like it or not, put him in and move on to the next one.
Charon
-
No, I think you have it right. He also said:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty....
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
He clearly did not like the power the courts had usurped.
"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government.
Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.
In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
-
I'm starting to believe Jefferson was prescient:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" - Thomas Jefferson
I think we failed that test.
-
A supreme court judge's only job is to determine the constitutionality of a case.
Being a florida resident ... the supreme court has much more power than you think.. look at the world today..
believe it or not the supreme court made the world what it is today.. Just refresh your 2000 election process..
So with that in mind thats why the dems got their panties in a bunch..
Also considering his age, and hence a potential era for the justice doesn't help.. its rather strange george doesn't use a current justice (Scalia and Thomas come to mind) and promote them to chief.. instead trying to solidify a nominee into the position for many years to come.. Hence giving advantage on issues to one policitcal party over another for years to come..
Thats the big issue here... stacking the judiciary with bias, longevity or both to gain political advantage imo is wrong... regardless of your partisanship..
personally i dont think roberts is really out of line or a poor canidate.. but when as a rookie he is nominated for chief justice that questions the credibility of the presidents choice..
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
And the democratic rebuttle:
A wise man once said: "The poor will always be with you". No truer statement was ever made. The best thing we can do for the poor is to pave the road ahead of them with opportunity not handouts and make sure that the bandits are kept off that road.
When it comes to the poorest among us, especially those descendants of the former slaves of this nation we have failed miserably over the last 50 years, because the leftist/socialist has no true desire to end the suffering of those poor folk by allowing them to achieve success in the free markets of America. For to do so renders them obsolete. It is only through the expansion of the proletariat do they solidify their political power.
Beware the man who looks upon you with the lust for power in his eyes and tells you what he proposes is for the "common good". For much evil in this world has been wrought for the purposes of the 'common good". Many a dictator has used just such language and just such events to consolidate power into the hands of a very few. Only our vigilance and our self reliance can prevent this.
They talk about disparity, what about the disparity of security in once home. Why is it, in cities across this nation, cities predominantly controlled by those who claim to be the "enlightened ones" is the law not enforced in the poorest and yes the 'blackest' communities? Is it because they prize the 'civil rights' of the crack dealer over the right of a parent to have a safe community for their children? Would the crack dealers and the gang warriors be allowed to set up shop in the wealthiest and 'whitest' communities in those cities? The answer is an obvious no. It is because crime and desperation keeps them for achieving the success that those on the left so desperately do not want them to achieve.
Those who spoke this day represent a political philosophy that has held the purse strings of this nation for many decades, they have held the raines of power in many of the cities and states where these poor 'black' communities exist and they still hold the power over much of the educational systems of this nation. Their track record is one of abysmal failure. Yet there are many in this nation and many within these communities that "Though they have eyes they fail to see".
Poverty can not be legislated away.
Poverty cannot be solved with a handout, only a hand up.
If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life.
There are no greater racists in modern America than the Rich White Liberals!
-
Damn Clifra, that brought a tear to my eye.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm starting to believe Jefferson was prescient:
I think we failed that test.
You know Toad, I feel that the USA is still the best country in the world. Not perfect by any means, but I wouldn't want to trade it with any other. Failed? Naw, I give it a B-
:)
-
Best country, yes, but it's still a far cry from being the best America.
-SW
-
personally i dont think roberts is really out of line or a poor canidate.. but when as a rookie he is nominated for chief justice that questions the credibility of the presidents choice.. - Dr Yo
I must disagree with the good Doctor from Florida. :)
Judge Roberts is not a rookie. He is recognised by both Democrats and Republicans as a brilliant legal mind.
Dr. Yo, you are the very first person I've heard who questions Judge Roberts' judicial ability. Not even that jowley blockhead fat-prettythang party boy Ted Kennedy or the plagerist hair club spokesperson Biden question the man's legal prowess.
You may not like him because he is conservative, but Bush has the right to nominate him. I assume that you are liberal. I predict your liberal representatives will confirm Judge Robertson, by and large, in spite of your assertion that he is a rookie. Can you explain this?
-
The "best America" is never going to happen now, IMO.
It can't happen given the overpowering nature of the Federal government.
Jefferson's fears have been realized.
"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best ... When all government ... shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as ... oppressive as the government from which we just separated." - Thomas Jefferson
We're not quite there yet but you can see the gates of hell from here.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't think Jefferson ever thought the States would become this subservient to the Federal government.
The feds give them an offer they can't refuse. I remember one instance where Reagan(not to be partisan, this is just one of many from both sides) withheld federal highway funds unless the states raised the drinking age to 21. I am no expert on this, but shouldn't that be illegal where it's the people from the states who actually pay federal taxes in the first place?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The feds give them an offer they can't refuse. I remember one instance where Reagan(not to be partisan, this is just one of many from both sides) withheld federal highway funds unless the states raised the drinking age to 21. I am no expert on this, but shouldn't that be illegal where it's the people from the states who actually pay federal taxes in the first place?
So true, this was one of the few things he did that I vehamently disagreed with. The feds do this quite often and it can only be called political blackmail. This is the legacy of the New Deal, The Great Society and things like title 9. We pump federal money into the states to help them with things like education and roads and then they stop allocating their own tax money to these things to the point that they are extreamly dependent on the federal DOLE. If the feds want something done all they need now do is threaten to withhold funds.
We should all look to the example of Cob County GA. A county that takes no federal assistance at all.
-
I predict your liberal representatives will confirm Judge Robertson, by and large, in spite of your assertion that he is a rookie. Can you explain this?
As a matter of fact I can..
If both political parties vote along party lines.. then he will be confirmed..
its a simple matter of who controls congress.. As of current the republican party (my party.. Yeah im a flaming liberal you nitz....Im a republican..**) has majority..
In the case of Bolton you had republican decent becuase quite frankly Bolton's track record is less than perfect..
In the case of roberts as i said earlier I do not disagree with his view or see him a unqualified canidate (stop putting words in my mouth, always this feeble tactic.. pathetic..)
here is what i said again. for the sweet pickles bus non reading imparied..
personally i dont think roberts is really out of line or a poor canidate.. but when as a rookie he is nominated for chief justice that questions the credibility of the presidents choice..
Thats what I said.. And as far as a rookie... how long has he been a justice of the supreme court... 0 is the answer.. otherwise known as a rookie.. He was a outstanding clerk.. An outstanding trial lawyer.. but supreme court justice no...
thats what im saying.. He is very young.. (to his credit i say this..) and as a result I see the angle of trying to get him into the Supremes especially as the chief justice.. Its clearly political.. by all means appoint him.. have him work his way up to the chief position.. But to appoint him to chief wet behind the ears is clearly partisan..
As a President that claims to be a uniter.. this manuever (yes its a tactical manuever) is clearly imo going to wrong direction and sending the wrong message to the demo / dumbocrats.. (i would have compromised on the first nomination.. and a ron jeremy production on the second nomination with the backing of the demo's unless they would want to renig (a trap for the upcomming congress election that i set by doing such..), but thats me, its called tact.. / compromise)(I suggest you study Ben Franklin..)
as such the next appointment will be fought tooth and nail by all parties at the cost of the credibility of the executive , congress and the supreme judiciary. At these times such foolishness is not needed and instead compromise for all political parties should be paramount for the prosperity of our nation..
**what many of you fail to realize is that you are all members of the American Party by default.. if you dont like that.. leave our country.. No individual is going to be some drone or cog for some political party and still have their freewill as per the founders of this country. You can be democrat and have Republican Ideals and vice versa.. so the stereotypical liberal this liberal that .. conservative this or conservative that.. thats BS and you know it.. A political party is like a union.. Use it for strength in numbers when they agree upon same line as you.. but if you disagree on those lines there are no rules that prohibit your own choice or freewill, or are there you tell me..?
you call me a liberal.. or you allure to it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
Read that and tell me whats wrong with those principles.. half of you people on these boards / elsewhere misuse this word on a daily basis because your ignorant.. (ignorant is not bad so dont take it as a insult {another misused word i might add} )
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Conservative
Read that and tell whats wrong with those principles of thought either..
trust me when i tell you most people of the USA fall under both of those definitions.. care to argue this? rebuttal?
Welcome to the American Party...
DoctorYo
-
As a matter of fact I can..
If both political parties vote along party lines.. then he will be confirmed.. - Doc Yo
I was wondering why you think that Democrats will confirm Judge Roberts?
-
Thats what I said.. And as far as a rookie... how long has he been a justice of the supreme court... 0 is the answer.. otherwise known as a rookie.. He was a outstanding clerk.. An outstanding trial lawyer.. but supreme court justice no...
My freind, the Supreme Judicial Court doesn't operate on the seniority system. All of them know that. You are witnessing the wisdom of our Constitution.
-
Originally posted by Nash
But the Constitution itself is a legal document.
If not up for "interpretation" by the SC, then by whom?
If Congress passes laws not in accordance with the Constitution, and if the Judiciary cannot - for lack of a better term - call the dudes on it, then what prevents the Constitution's complete erosion?
Who then upholds it?
In whose hands would you entrust with it?
From another thread....
I believe you are referring to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions offered by Madison and Jefferson around 1800.
They stated if the federal government oversteps it's authority, (by creating unconstitutional laws) then the STATES may declare them null and void. Called Nullification. The STATES may do it, not the individuals holed up in Mt. Carmel.
It further goes on to say that the STATES in such a position are under obligation to stay between the Feds and the Citizenry in order to protect them. (citizens) Interposition.
-
I'd liked what I saw in the hearings so far. He strikes me as intelligent and honest. 2 things I would like from a supreme court justice.
How is it that he can be the cheif justice (not that it matters) though, I thought that was usually done by seniority but I have no idea.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I'd liked what I saw in the hearings so far. He strikes me as intelligent and honest. 2 things I would like from a supreme court justice.
How is it that he can be the cheif justice (not that it matters) though, I thought that was usually done by seniority but I have no idea.
IIRC the president could nominate one of the current justices to replace reinquist or nominate a new one. It's up to him.
Personally I have to agree with your assesment of Roberts. He seems like a smart, decent, honest man.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
IIRC the president could nominate one of the current justices to replace reinquist or nominate a new one. It's up to him.
Personally I have to agree with your assesment of Roberts. He seems like a smart, decent, honest man.
Then who votes on it? Who decides? I would guess maybe the Senate or the justices themselves.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Then who votes on it? Who decides? I would guess maybe the Senate or the justices themselves.
Nope IIRC it is the Judicial committe in the Senate then Allows the vote to go to the floor.
The senate votes than Confirms him.
The other justices have nothing to do with it.