A thread for discussing the Supreme Court issue in the presedential election

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: lupi
I don't think it matters much.

We could hardly disagree more. That's what a lot of people said about Bush and Gore, too.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Many of the left leaning are hoping that Scalia will die of natural causes in the near future reducing the dangerous cabal to only three.

Yet another example of the left wishing for the death of people...

...says the party who actually prayed for God to remove justices from the Supreme court: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...itics/main563247.shtml

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Many of the left leaning are hoping that Scalia will die of natural causes in the near future reducing the dangerous cabal to only three.

Yet another example of the left wishing for the death of people...

...says the party who actually prayed for God to remove justices from the Supreme court: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...itics/main563247.shtml

Hey genius, he wasn't wishing for their death.

Originally posted by: Pat Robertson

The same letter targets three justices in particular: "One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"

RIF

Edit - You must not have gotten the memo, this election cycle the Dems are defending radical churches while the Republicans are attacking them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Many of the left leaning are hoping that Scalia will die of natural causes in the near future reducing the dangerous cabal to only three.

Yet another example of the left wishing for the death of people...

...says the party who actually prayed for God to remove justices from the Supreme court: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...itics/main563247.shtml

Hey genius, he wasn't wishing for their death.

Originally posted by: Pat Robertson

The same letter targets three justices in particular: "One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"

RIF

Edit - You must not have gotten the memo, this election cycle the Dems are defending radical churches while the Republicans are attacking them.

Fair enough, but you want to defend Robertson? From the same article, see him defend his business buddy Liberian President Charles Taylor:

ust last week, Robertson got on the soapbox on another issue: the Bush administration's demand that Liberian President Charles Taylor resign from office.

"It's one thing to say, we will give you money if you step down and we will give you troops if you step down, but just to order him to step down? He doesn't work for us," the evangelist said last Monday, speaking on "The 700 Club."...

"We're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country," said an outraged Robertson, a Bush supporter who has financial interests in Liberia. "How dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.'"

So, how dare the president tell a president to step down? But of course, Charles Taylor is a Christian Baptist, not Saddam.

Why would Robertson defend him?

According to a June 2, 1999, article in The Virginian-Pilot,[28] Taylor had extensive business dealings with televangelist Pat Robertson. According to the article, Taylor gave Robertson (who also had business dealings with dictator Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire) the rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia's mineral-rich countryside. According to two Operation Blessing pilots who reported this incident to the state of Virginia for investigation in 1994, Robertson used his Operation Blessing planes to haul diamond-mining equipment to Robertson's mines in Liberia, despite the fact that Robertson was telling his 700 Club viewers that the planes were sending relief supplies to the victims of the genocide in Rwanda. The subsequent investigation by the state of Virginia concluded that Robertson diverted his ministry's donations to the Liberian diamond-mining operation, but Attorney General of Virginia Mark Earley blocked any potential prosecution against Robertson

More Republican criminal coverup and obstruction of justice.

Who is Taylor?

From NPR:

The war crimes trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor has resumed in the Hague.

In often gruesome testimony, a clergyman recounted a massacre of 101 men and the mutilation and murder of a small boy.

Taylor is accused of orchestrating rape, murder and mutilation and using child soldiers during the civil war in Sierra Leone. Prosecutors say he was after that country's diamond wealth.

From the trial reported on Wikipedia:

At the war crimes trial, Joseph "Zigzag" Marzah, a former military commander, testified that Charles Taylor celebrated his newfound status by ordering human sacrifice, including the killings of Taylor's opponents and allies that were perceived to have betrayed Taylor and having a pregnant woman buried in sand while alive.[26] Marzah also accused Taylor of forcing cannibalism on his soldiers, in order to terrorize their enemies

You defend Robertson, eh?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

From your standpoint "middle of the road" is radical.:lips:

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm looking for what we really need to worry about with the all democratic government, and don't see it, outside the myths of the right, or the wrong assumption it's like Bush.

The huge deficits are inventions of the Republicans, not all-democrat government. The best example perhaps is the Vietnam war, but that had strong Republican support.

I'd like to hear any evidence form history why the all-democrat government is so terrible. I'll agree that after a point, you can see entrenchment be bad, but for a while to fix Bush?

Sigh. You sound like the democrat version of Rush. If the republicans said water was wet you'd argue it was all a lie, just like Rush would argue it was a lie if the democrats said it.

Irrespective of your ideology, having no checks in place to prevent bad ideas from going through simply because of the 'one party' mentality is a bad idea. A single party is much more likely to go into "group think" mode and do things to benefit a certain group of constituents instead of the whole country. You need a balance in poitns of view. We just saw 8 years in action of just having one side represented. To my knowledge, there has never been a time when the WH and both houses were controlled by the democratic party, and I don't wish to see that happen now. I didn't want to see that happen in 2000 either. It's just a bad idea, no matter what your ideology.

What you saw in the Right controlled government was what happens when the back seat driver gets a hold of the wheel and runs the ship of state upon the rocks.

 

[Cuda1447]

I agree with what Pokerguy said, the two parties keep each other in check. Unfortunately a lot of discussion on a lot of issues doesn't pertain to the issue itself, but rather which side is 'for' and which side is 'against' the argument. Then the people involved in the argument usually just agree with what their party agrees with

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

From your standpoint "middle of the road" is radical.:lips:

If by "middle of the road" means the 4 left/liberal judges... Again, it's about one's own viewpoint and what they think the job of the SC is.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Many of the left leaning are hoping that Scalia will die of natural causes in the near future reducing the dangerous cabal to only three.

Yet another example of the left wishing for the death of people...

...says the party who actually prayed for God to remove justices from the Supreme court: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...itics/main563247.shtml

Hey genius, he wasn't wishing for their death.

Originally posted by: Pat Robertson

The same letter targets three justices in particular: "One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"

RIF

Edit - You must not have gotten the memo, this election cycle the Dems are defending radical churches while the Republicans are attacking them.

Fair enough, but you want to defend Robertson? From the same article, see him defend his business buddy Liberian President Charles Taylor:

ust last week, Robertson got on the soapbox on another issue: the Bush administration's demand that Liberian President Charles Taylor resign from office.

"It's one thing to say, we will give you money if you step down and we will give you troops if you step down, but just to order him to step down? He doesn't work for us," the evangelist said last Monday, speaking on "The 700 Club."...

"We're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country," said an outraged Robertson, a Bush supporter who has financial interests in Liberia. "How dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.'"

So, how dare the president tell a president to step down? But of course, Charles Taylor is a Christian Baptist, not Saddam.

Why would Robertson defend him?

According to a June 2, 1999, article in The Virginian-Pilot,[28] Taylor had extensive business dealings with televangelist Pat Robertson. According to the article, Taylor gave Robertson (who also had business dealings with dictator Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire) the rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia's mineral-rich countryside. According to two Operation Blessing pilots who reported this incident to the state of Virginia for investigation in 1994, Robertson used his Operation Blessing planes to haul diamond-mining equipment to Robertson's mines in Liberia, despite the fact that Robertson was telling his 700 Club viewers that the planes were sending relief supplies to the victims of the genocide in Rwanda. The subsequent investigation by the state of Virginia concluded that Robertson diverted his ministry's donations to the Liberian diamond-mining operation, but Attorney General of Virginia Mark Earley blocked any potential prosecution against Robertson

More Republican criminal coverup and obstruction of justice.

Who is Taylor?

From NPR:

The war crimes trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor has resumed in the Hague.

In often gruesome testimony, a clergyman recounted a massacre of 101 men and the mutilation and murder of a small boy.

Taylor is accused of orchestrating rape, murder and mutilation and using child soldiers during the civil war in Sierra Leone. Prosecutors say he was after that country's diamond wealth.

From the trial reported on Wikipedia:

At the war crimes trial, Joseph "Zigzag" Marzah, a former military commander, testified that Charles Taylor celebrated his newfound status by ordering human sacrifice, including the killings of Taylor's opponents and allies that were perceived to have betrayed Taylor and having a pregnant woman buried in sand while alive.[26] Marzah also accused Taylor of forcing cannibalism on his soldiers, in order to terrorize their enemies

You defend Robertson, eh?

Craig, please put your blind partisan zealotry on hold for a just a minute and actually read my post. You're such a partisan tool that you assume that just because I'm a conservative I'm defending Robertson. I was calling rockyct out on his lie, I was not defending Robertson. I didn't even read all of the crap that you just posted because I really don't care. Robertson, Wright, and all the other religious whackos are all morons.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

From your standpoint "middle of the road" is radical.:lips:

If by "middle of the road" means the 4 left/liberal judges... Again, it's about one's own viewpoint and what they think the job of the SC is.

Was the job of the SC to get in the middle of a state issue and override its Supreme Court on the basis that counting the votes would cause harm to the candidate who just happened to be the same candidate the justice who led the effort had a son who worked for the same law firm that represented that candidate in the Supreme Court case?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

From your standpoint "middle of the road" is radical.:lips:

If by "middle of the road" means the 4 left/liberal judges... Again, it's about one's own viewpoint and what they think the job of the SC is.

Was the job of the SC to get in the middle of a state issue and override its Supreme Court on the basis that counting the votes would cause harm to the candidate who just happened to be the same candidate the justice who led the effort had a son who worked for the same law firm that represented that candidate in the Supreme Court case?

If voters were to be disenfranchised, yes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

From your standpoint "middle of the road" is radical.:lips:

If by "middle of the road" means the 4 left/liberal judges... Again, it's about one's own viewpoint and what they think the job of the SC is.

Was the job of the SC to get in the middle of a state issue and override its Supreme Court on the basis that counting the votes would cause harm to the candidate who just happened to be the same candidate the justice who led the effort had a son who worked for the same law firm that represented that candidate in the Supreme Court case?

Even asking that question shows how much you don't understand the 2000 election. But on one level - yes it did deal with Constitutional issues. 7-2 was the vote on the equal protection clause.

But again, it's nothing more than your opinion based on your own views of what the court should do.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

From your standpoint "middle of the road" is radical.:lips:

If by "middle of the road" means the 4 left/liberal judges... Again, it's about one's own viewpoint and what they think the job of the SC is.

Was the job of the SC to get in the middle of a state issue and override its Supreme Court on the basis that counting the votes would cause harm to the candidate who just happened to be the same candidate the justice who led the effort had a son who worked for the same law firm that represented that candidate in the Supreme Court case?

If voters were to be disenfranchised, yes.

Voters weren't going to be disenfranchised by counting the votes. They were disenfranchised by the SC decision to not count the votes (among other things).

 

[Pabster]

It was a huge issue in '04 too, but few paid attention. Fortunately, we lucked out. :laugh:

To be honest, I'm not convinced McCain would appoint a significantly different group of folks than Obama. Of course he says he would, but I'm not placing any bets.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your blind faith for 'balance' flies out the window when one of the two sides you want represent goes 'radical'.

What you call "radical" is what someone on the right side would call "normal", and vice versa. Hence, the best idea is to have a government that includes a mix of views, with no single view able to dominate everything.

AGAIN, you simplistically equate 8 years of the REPUBLICANS with 8 years of DEMOCRATS as if they're equally corrupt, equally incompetent, and that's not the case.

Yes, it is. Like Rush, you delude yourself into thinking that "your team" is better than the other team, so your team having absolute control without impediment is a good thing. My point is that sometimes the R's are right, sometimes the D's are right, sometimes they are both wrong, neither one of them is always correct, so having one side be able to implement all their ideas without impediments is a bad thing.

After the great depression, we didn't need 'balance', we needed FDR and a democratic congress to take strong corrective action.

According to whom?

There have been many times the WH and congress were both controlled by democrats, including Clinton's first two years and almost every year for every democrat since FDR.

Ok, I'll concede that I have not gone back and looked at who controlled each house in congress during every presidential term. Having a majority in the house and/or senate does not mean having total control though, only having a super majority (being able to override fillibusters, procedural blocks etc).

Remarkably, on most of them, if I ranked the presidents, the lists came out democrats 1-5 and republicans 6-10, surprising me. Democrats' average indicators were clearly higher.

That's not a meaningful result because 1) the president by himself can not set policy (ie the role of congress is much larger) 2) the effects of a policy might not be seen during the term of that president. You'll always have people arguing that the economic uptick/downtick during a presidency was a result of the actions of the previous president(s). Basicallly there's no way to really isolate those factors and come to a conclusive answer in terms of "who is better".

The 'moderate bias' is just as much a bias as a left or right bias, and it's more insidious in that people who have it easily assum they can't be biased if they're in the middle

I don't have a bias towards the "middle", my view is that each side can be right or wrong, it depends on the issue. I simply don't believe one 'side' is right on everything, so I don't want one 'side' able to run the whole process without having to factor in the other side.

That's the main problem in DC -- somehow 'sides' have become more important than issues. That's the polarization and the problem, and you seem perfectly willing to continue that problem, just in the other extreme from where we've been.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Don't forget to add gay marriage to your left-wing skip the court approach.

Is there a state in the country that has passed a law to allow gay marriage?
Meanwhile something like 30 states has passed some law to make sure 'marriage' is between a male and a female.

Yet the left ignored the will of the people and heads to court every chance they can.

"The will of the people" is not an excuse for biggotry. You understand we don't have a direct democracy for a reason, right?

 

[lupi]

Just heard that the SC voted against the administration on the unlimited detaining of foreign nationals.

And here I thought this was supposed to be a bush friendly court.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

From your standpoint "middle of the road" is radical.:lips:

If by "middle of the road" means the 4 left/liberal judges... Again, it's about one's own viewpoint and what they think the job of the SC is.

Was the job of the SC to get in the middle of a state issue and override its Supreme Court on the basis that counting the votes would cause harm to the candidate who just happened to be the same candidate the justice who led the effort had a son who worked for the same law firm that represented that candidate in the Supreme Court case?

If voters were to be disenfranchised, yes.

Voters weren't going to be disenfranchised by counting the votes. They were disenfranchised by the SC decision to not count the votes (among other things).

The FLA SC was willing to allow cherry picking of the counties that were to be re-done.
The USSC stated that there had to be a recoiunt across the board and that there should be a set of guidelines on how the recount should be handled applied across the state.

How is stating that there should be consistent guidelines preventing a vote recount?
The Fla SC was the one that wanted to not count certain votes.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234
As most know, the current court has four radical right-wingers (or wonderful judges, if you're part of the problem): Thomas and Scalia from before Clinton, and Roberta and Alito.

I just love the loaded language used by Craig234. All hail, King of the Trolls!

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
This is an important issue and one that may make me get off my hands instead of sitting on them. From the OP's standpoint there are 4 "radical" judges but there are also 4 "radical" judges from my standpoint - just not the same 4.

Except that you have to be deluded and/or utterly ignorant to call Souter/Ginsburg/Stevens/Breyer "radical", when they're clearly in the historical norm.

Weren't they the majority in Kelo v. New London? So that case was the "historical norm"? And who was it supporting restrictions on political speech in the majority opinion in McConnell v. FEC and in the minority in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life? Why, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer! In both cases, the ACLU filed amicus briefs going against outcomes favored by those four. But I suppose you're not a big free speech fan, at least when it comes to political speech. I guess you think the First Amendment is just about inflammatory art.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The most notable issue may be a reversal of Roe v Wade and that may well be an explosive political issue.

Actually, if Roe is overturned, all that's going to do is return the issue to the states. Do you think for 1 second states like California and New York are going to outlaw abortion? Of course not. A few red states with small populations might restrict or outlaw abortion outright, but overall, the effect is going to be minimal in a lot of places. Overturning Roe would merely return the issue to state legislatures, where it belongs. It would not in any way guarantee a pro-life outcome at that level.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234
There's huge, massive evidence and proof the 4 righties are radical, and I'm sick and tired of spending hours to collect the data for those like you who don't give a crap to read it.

Since 'radical' is a subjective term, how can you have 'proof' (which implies an objective standard) of it? You praise Earl Warren in this thread, but was he not considered radical for his time? Regardless, what are your qualifications to make these statements? What law school did you attend?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Many of the left leaning are hoping that Scalia will die of natural causes in the near future reducing the dangerous cabal to only three.

Yet another example of the left wishing for the death of people...

LL does this with disturbing regularity.

 

[Fingolfin269]

My only concern with the Supreme Court is that whoever is appointed next is a shoe-in for strictly following the Constitution. I don't want any law making from the bench.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

The FLA SC was willing to allow cherry picking of the counties that were to be re-done.
The USSC stated that there had to be a recoiunt across the board and that there should be a set of guidelines on how the recount should be handled applied across the state.

How is stating that there should be consistent guidelines preventing a vote recount?
The Fla SC was the one that wanted to not count certain votes.

Except that the Florida Supreme Court was following state election law. The Florida election law stated that if someone wanted to challenge the results of an election, they needed to specify what counties they wanted recounted. Gore did this.

Then the USSC said that they A.) needed to recount all the votes (okay), but B.) That there was no time to recount all the votes so we shouldn't even bother. (!?!!?) Yeah, who cares about finding out who actually WON?

There is a reason why they all refuse to talk about Bush v. Gore and why they explicitly state that it has no binding precedent over any future case.

Also for anyone saying Supreme Court choices won't matter much, todays ruling on Guantanamo should disabuse you of that. It was a 5-4 ruling and both justices Bush appointed came down on the side of saying it was okay to indefinitely imprison people without trial.