Hurmoth Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 I give up on this. If Bush nominates an ultra conservative then I lose all respect for him. If he doesn't then I gain a whole bunch back. 586165989[/snapback] If he doesn't nominate an ultra conservative, I loose all respect for him. If he does, then I'll consider him one of the best presidents this country has ever had ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted July 5, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 5, 2005 I just hope he nominates someone who is capable of ruling on the law, regardless of his/her personally philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 I just hope he nominates someone who is capable of ruling on the law, regardless of his/her personally philosophy. 586166400[/snapback] That's a great way of looking at it. Someone who follows the Constitution and doesn't read their own views into it :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 That is my biggest problem with the originalists. While I agree with them that the Constitution should be read with intent in mind it opens up the biggest problem as well, the incredible subjectivity of it all. Add a drop of revisionist history and there is little that can not be justified. Seriously though, is balance so hard to come by or cope with by those of you who want to turn this into another mini-election like that flaming douch Dobson does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Seriously though, is balance so hard to come by or cope with by those of you who want to turn this into another mini-election like that flaming douch Dobson does? 586167842[/snapback] Hardly. Bush could recommend Ted Kennedy and the liberals would scream he's too conservative. This is a no win situation for Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 Hardly. Bush could recommend Ted Kennedy and the liberals would scream he's too conservative. This is a no win situation for Bush. 586167888[/snapback] Very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palin Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 (edited) ^ Nah. As a liberal, I'd take Kennedy. And I could see alot of goose-stepping ultraconservative types complaining that (should Bush raise him from the dead and nominate him,) Leo Strauss himself would be too liberal. This is a no win situation for Bush. Well, I for one don't feel very sorry for both poor Mr. Bush, the most powerful man in the free world, and his superneoconservative overmajority, who can barely seem to get everything they could possibly want passed through a democratic government whether their constitutients approve of it or not. Anyway, I doubt whoever he nominates will be much of a surprise, undoubtably it'll be another member of the PNAC, like nearly everyone else he picks out. Edited July 5, 2005 by Palin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 BOOG, I fail to see how that addressed my question as to why finding middle ground is so difficult for either side. Since you obviously are rooting for one team I am not surprised to find a simplistic jab at the other. My point about Dobson, and now with the mentality that you have shown as well, is that I fail to see the usefulness of politicizing the judiciary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted July 6, 2005 Author Share Posted July 6, 2005 BOOG, I fail to see how that addressed my question as to why finding middle ground is so difficult for either side. Since you obviously are rooting for one team I am not surprised to find a simplistic jab at the other. My point about Dobson, and now with the mentality that you have shown as well, is that I fail to see the usefulness of politicizing the judiciary. 586169104[/snapback] Why should Bush find someone in the middle when he doesn't agree with them? I don't get these people who want a moderate. If I don't agree with them, and remember I am a voter (along with 64 million other Americans who voted for Bush) that want Ultra-conservatives on the bench. And don't even dare give me polls that say I'm wrong because I can find polls that say that exact opposite. Polls prove nothing because the people doing the poll are going to be biased and more then likely they're only going to ask people of like-mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefChickenWing Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Simply put, these are men and women who uphold the LAW, not a specific Partys values. The LAW does not have a Political party, it does not "like"' or "dislike" any person more or less, because they are liberal or conservative. And if we are putting Judges on the bench on the basis of thier "prefered" political party, we have already failed, and should just give up now. Is it realy that dificult to see that our Judges are not supposed to be "more conservative" or "more liberal", but are supposed to view these matters as an aside, and look at the LAW, and how its written, and base their decisions on that.....what the hell is wrong with you people???? I just want to know at what point we stopped looking at the people who uphold and shape our nations laws less as Judges, and more as tools to further one sides idea(l)s over anothers. If this IS what our judiciary is for, or what you would rather it became, we are screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Why should Bush find someone in the middle when he doesn't agree with them? I don't get these people who want a moderate. If I don't agree with them, and remember I am a voter (along with 64 million other Americans who voted for Bush) that want Ultra-conservatives on the bench.586169167[/snapback] He's supposed to be President of the United States, and its estimated 296 million citizens, not President of 62 million voters. And I seriously doubt a single person can make such a sweeping claim as to speak for the desires of all 62 million of those voters. Whatever happened to Bush claiming to be a uniter, not a divider? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 He's supposed to be President of the United States, and its estimated 296 million citizens, not President of 62 million voters. And I seriously doubt a single person can make such a sweeping claim as to speak for the desires of all 62 million of those voters.Whatever happened to Bush claiming to be a uniter, not a divider? 586169291[/snapback] Let's not forget his campaign promises of nominating someone along the lines of Scalia and Thomas. Should he turn his back on and betray those who voted him into office? Give me a break. Plus, almost guaranteed Bush's first choice is Alberto Gonzales... hardly an 'ultra-conservative'. There's a reason many of the far right disapprove of him - his moderate views on many of the 'hot issues'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted July 6, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 6, 2005 If he is as you say rumble then that would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Let's not forget his campaign promises of nominating someone along the lines of Scalia and Thomas. Should he turn his back on and betray those who voted him into office? Give me a break.586169442[/snapback] I think what you meant is "Give Bush a break" but it's not exactly my fault he's boxed himself in with inconsistent rhetoric. Plus, almost guaranteed Bush's first choice is Alberto Gonzales... hardly an 'ultra-conservative'. There's a reason many of the far right disapprove of him - his moderate views on many of the 'hot issues'. 586169442[/snapback] Well I suppose anyone looks "moderate" compared to Ayatollah James Dobson, Mullah Jerry Falwell, and radical cleric Tony Perkins. Setting the bar here, really, really low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 My point about Dobson, and now with the mentality that you have shown as well, is that I fail to see the usefulness of politicizing the judiciary. 586169104[/snapback] Ah Dashel. I post, speaking nothing of you at all, and you come back in an attack. Good to see some things never change. :rolleyes: Of course there's no usefulness, but it's unavoidable is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b mitchell Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Why should Bush find someone in the middle when he doesn't agree with them? I don't get these people who want a moderate. If I don't agree with them, and remember I am a voter (along with 64 million other Americans who voted for Bush) that want Ultra-conservatives on the bench.And don't even dare give me polls that say I'm wrong because I can find polls that say that exact opposite. Polls prove nothing because the people doing the poll are going to be biased and more then likely they're only going to ask people of like-mind. 586169167[/snapback] You obviously dont understand the POINT of the court if you thinnk that an ultra-conservative is the correct chioce for a replacement. Simply put, you have elminated any validity and respect for your argument when you cant look past your own party's ass kissing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted July 6, 2005 Author Share Posted July 6, 2005 Simply put, you have elminated any validity and respect for your argument when you cant look past your own party's ass kissing. 586171002[/snapback] And the same can be said for you :laugh: So tell me, what is the point of the court? Is it not to uphold the Constitution? Liberals can't see three feet in front of themselves, let alone actually know what the Constitution means. This is why an Ultra-conservative would be great for the Court and this country! An Originalist is what this country needs on the bench, not an activist that abuses their power and creates laws. The Court was never meant for creating laws :pinch: I don't understand why liberals are so upset; did you see Clinton nominate a moderate to bench? Bush Sr. and Regan both found the Republican Party when it came to nominating a true Conservative to the bench and I certainly hope that does not happen again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 6, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 6, 2005 I just hope he nominates someone who is capable of ruling on the law, regardless of his/her personally philosophy. 586166400[/snapback] that is, of course, the ideal, and one everyone hopes for, but it's impractical. two people with the same understanding of the law but diametrically opposed values can end up with two different interpretations. that's why it's good to have a balance on the board. as unfortunate as it is, politics does enter into the decision because values are part of the equation. what we have to hope for is that liberals and conservatives, regardless of their personal values, can take an objective point of view and fight for justice, not parties. whether or not this is possible is another question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 So tell me, what is the point of the court? Is it not to uphold the Constitution? Liberals can't see three feet in front of themselves, let alone actually know what the Constitution means. This is why an Ultra-conservative would be great for the Court and this country! An Originalist is what this country needs on the bench, not an activist that abuses their power and creates laws. The Court was never meant for creating laws :pinch: 586171094[/snapback] Ahem, the Constitution is able to be amended for a reason. If it wasn't for progressive thought, African Americans and women wouldn't have the same rights as Caucasian males. Would you like that, or have you been brainwashed by that racist Savage guy? Get it through your Conservative head that not everything has to stay the same. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to make laws, but interpretation of the law means it doesn't exactly have to kill every practice that's in violation of the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b mitchell Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 And the same can be said for you :laugh: So tell me, what is the point of the court? Is it not to uphold the Constitution? Liberals can't see three feet in front of themselves, let alone actually know what the Constitution means. This is why an Ultra-conservative would be great for the Court and this country! An Originalist is what this country needs on the bench, not an activist that abuses their power and creates laws. The Court was never meant for creating laws :pinch: I don't understand why liberals are so upset; did you see Clinton nominate a moderate to bench? Bush Sr. and Regan both found the Republican Party when it came to nominating a true Conservative to the bench and I certainly hope that does not happen again! 586171094[/snapback] I am so glad you lump me together with liberals when you clearly now so very little about my overall political standing. I suppose you lack the understanding as to what an ultra-conservative means by today's standards. We are obviously not using the terms as they meant when the Constitution was written. An ultra-conservative today has more to do with Jerry Falwell or a fascist than anything else. An originalist on the other hand is HARDLY what the court needs. The Court is designed to interpret and follow the constitution while taking the present trends of the times into account. An originalist would completely ignore the aspect of modernity from the church. This is why a moderate is needed. A moderate stands between the party lines so easily seen today, and a moderate would take that stance to apply it to interpreting the consitution as the court was designed. You want the equivalant of a right-wing christian who reads the bible as is where God said let there be light to meaning "God just went 'click'". What the court needs is someone who could take (as per example ONLY) the bible's words and assimilate into them the knowledge that science has brought us to come up with a well-balanced interpretations of the Earth's early years and events. You want an extremist, where as I (along with a logical portion of this nation) want someone who is willing to put aside party lines to interpret the consitution for what is hopefully viewed as the best decision for ALL Americans; a moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 I think what you meant is "Give Bush a break" but it's not exactly my fault he's boxed himself in with inconsistent rhetoric.Well I suppose anyone looks "moderate" compared to Ayatollah James Dobson, Mullah Jerry Falwell, and radical cleric Tony Perkins. Setting the bar here, really, really low. 586169785[/snapback] I can't be bothered to read any tripe put out by the ACLU. I'm not exactly sure how the 3 you mentioned (ignoring the childish titles) came up, or are even relevant to the discussion. Care to explain? The only connection I know of lies in their involvement campaigning for a judicial conservative nominee. I think it's a bit disturbing that simply adhering to traditional Christian values earns you a title as a 'radical' or extremist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Now now, let's keep this thread civil people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 (edited) Ah Dashel. I post, speaking nothing of you at all, and you come back in an attack... Of course there's no usefulness, but it's unavoidable is my point. You quoted my post before you replied so I thought you were responding to me. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just don't understand why groups are mobilizing around this as if its a good thing. Why isn't balance enough? (and why a simple majority isn't a good idea IMO). Shall we really take our cue from Hurmoth's sentiment that nominees should be weighed against the belief system of maybe 20% of the country (by his count) instead of the Constitution? I heard an interesting snippet from Ingram to the effect that the evangelicals are getting disgusted with the system. They have been stacking the Republican deck to get their agenda carried out but are not getting the results they wanted. That a Supreme Court that has been generally controlled by Republicans have failed to 'act in their best interest' to the point that 'maybe' they should stop pouring cash and resources into the system and just go back to living their lives and worrying about those around them. Dear God, let this be true. Did you finally hear my prayers? Edited July 7, 2005 by Dashel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 Hardly. Bush could recommend Ted Kennedy and the liberals would scream he's too conservative. This is a no win situation for Bush. 586167888[/snapback] So far this is the most ridiculous post in the thread. I did get a good laugh out of it though. Thanks for the chuckles Mr. BoogSofball. You don't mind if I call you that, do you? It's a matter of respect. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts