Asking all liberals. Are you fed up yet?

[ExpertNovice]

Assuming you are not Communist, Marxist, etc. are you fed up yet? Have the current actions by the U.S. Congress in filibustering the District Court nominees so that the courts can be loaded with judges even more liberal than are on the Supreme Court opened your eyes?

Consider:
High court OKs personal property seizures
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/
Hey, guess what! This is worse than the Communist plan where you can't own property. Now, you can purchase property and pay taxes for the purchase, pay taxes while you own it, be forced by the Government to maintain it, all the while knowing you don't REALLY own it because if the Government wants to raise taxes they can simply take your home. Oh, if the people sue the Government will simply raise your taxes so they can pay their lawyers. Sweet.


Supreme Court splits on Ten Commandments
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s03-usju.html
Now, the lawyers get to make even more money by suing over the fact of the display of the Ten Commandments.


A Defeat for Users of Medical Marijuana
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2005/06/06/AR2005060600564_pf.html
We can use opium and strychnine for medicinal purposes, but not marijuana.


Actually, considering the number of liberals who are starting to move away from the Democrat Party and move to the Republican Party I think my question has answered. Still, is their time to restore our nation or is it too late?

 

[her209]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the SC was there not to decide the outcome, but to make sure that procedures with accordance to the law was followed properly.

 

[phantom309]

Well, I'm won over. Do me a favor - can you tell me exactly how many Democrats are switching parties because of this? Real, substantiated numbers? I'd like to know how big a bandwagon I'm jumping on.

 

[Darkhawk28]

The OP shows that famous "Bumper Sticker" mentality.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: phantom309
Well, I'm won over. Do me a favor - can you tell me exactly how many Democrats are switching parties because of this? Real, substantiated numbers? I'd like to know how big a bandwagon I'm jumping on.

Take a look at the 50-60 years prior to President Clinton and see who controlled the House and Senate. Now, take a look since 1992.

That should help you.

Welcome aboard, if you are sincere. You have now entered the equality zone.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Still, is their time to restore our nation or is it too late?

Only if we can get rid of the neocon liars who spent us into extreme debt on a war based entirely on lies while raping the environment and selling out to the drug cartels with yet more lies by whitewahing over real reports by their own scientists.

That said, I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision about eminent domain. As Sandra Day O'Connor said in her minority opinion:

"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."

I'm glad the court struck down at least one of the Ten Commandment cases. Sadly, the shakey, tedious logic in closely split decisions gave no clear guidelines and left the door open for years of litigation on a case by case basis.

I doubt that more idealogically driven court would help either way.

Striking down medical marijuana was simply sick, but it left the door open for Congress to pass legislation to allow it. Now, all we need is a bunch of legilators to get their heads out of their collective asses.

Again, ideology and political affiliation won't help. This is a money driven issue, and far too many in Congress from both parties are on the take.

I'm a liberal, and I'm fed up, but if you think these issues can be conveniently framed in terms of labels like "liberal" or "conservative," you are sadly mistaken. If you consider yourself a "conservative," and you aren't fed up, you simply don't understand what's going on.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: phantom309
Well, I'm won over. Do me a favor - can you tell me exactly how many Democrats are switching parties because of this? Real, substantiated numbers? I'd like to know how big a bandwagon I'm jumping on.

Take a look at the 50-60 years prior to President Clinton and see who controlled the House and Senate. Now, take a look since 1992.

That should help you.

Welcome aboard, if you are sincere. You have now entered the equality zone.

More like the twilight zone.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: her209
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the SC was there not to decide the outcome, but to make sure that procedures with accordance to the law was followed properly.

Yes that is what they are there for. As you can see from their own reversals including one that was made in 1997 they are no longer abiding by the rule of law. Of course, you have see the devestation wrought by activist judges before so this is nothing new.

You can also see that the liberal judges are no longer ruling base on the Constitution. Even their own opinions talk about ruling based on the current laws of other countries.

Maybe you can name a few countries that don't really allow the individuals to own private property. Of course, this is what President Clinton kept stating. Your money and property is only yours by the grace of the Government.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Assuming you are not Communist, Marxist, etc. are you fed up yet? Have the current actions by the U.S. Congress in filibustering the District Court nominees so that the courts can be loaded with judges even more liberal than are on the Supreme Court opened your eyes?

Consider:
High court OKs personal property seizures
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/
Hey, guess what! This is worse than the Communist plan where you can't own property. Now, you can purchase property and pay taxes for the purchase, pay taxes while you own it, be forced by the Government to maintain it, all the while knowing you don't REALLY own it because if the Government wants to raise taxes they can simply take your home. Oh, if the people sue the Government will simply raise your taxes so they can pay their lawyers. Sweet

you're being a little melodramatic here. I don't agree with the decision but you forget to mentioned that you're compensated at the fair market value. This one example doesnt show a trend that anyone would get fed up with though.


Supreme Court splits on Ten Commandments
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s03-usju.html
Now, the lawyers get to make even more money by suing over the fact of the display of the Ten Commandments.
this seemed like a compromise to me between the liberals and conservatives. What's so wrong with saying the context is important and how are the liberals any more to blame than the conservative judges for this decision?

A Defeat for Users of Medical Marijuana
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2005/06/06/AR2005060600564_pf.html
We can use opium and strychnine for medicinal purposes, but not marijuana.

I thought it was the conservatives that were for banning medical marijuane?

Next you'll be blaiming liberals for the flag burning amendment.

You're just being a partisan hack. You disagree with the liberal agenda, there's nothing here that actually supports your claims of being fed up with liberal policy. Especially, since most of the policy coming out of the government these days is conservative in nature.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: her209
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the SC was there not to decide the outcome, but to make sure that procedures with accordance to the law was followed properly.

Yes that is what they are there for. As you can see from their own reversals including one that was made in 1997 they are no longer abiding by the rule of law. Of course, you have see the devestation wrought by activist judges before so this is nothing new.

You can also see that the liberal judges are no longer ruling base on the Constitution. Even their own opinions talk about ruling based on the current laws of other countries.

Maybe you can name a few countries that don't really allow the individuals to own private property. Of course, this is what President Clinton kept stating. Your money and property is only yours by the grace of the Government.

You do realize that 7 out of the 9 judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, don't you? It takes 5 to win. Even if the 2 "activist" judges were to go on the affirming side, it still takes 3 of your own conservative judges to win the case.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Assuming you are not Communist, Marxist, etc. are you fed up yet? Have the current actions by the U.S. Congress in filibustering the District Court nominees so that the courts can be loaded with judges even more liberal than are on the Supreme Court opened your eyes?

Consider:
High court OKs personal property seizures
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/
Hey, guess what! This is worse than the Communist plan where you can't own property. Now, you can purchase property and pay taxes for the purchase, pay taxes while you own it, be forced by the Government to maintain it, all the while knowing you don't REALLY own it because if the Government wants to raise taxes they can simply take your home. Oh, if the people sue the Government will simply raise your taxes so they can pay their lawyers. Sweet

you're being a little melodramatic here. I don't agree with the decision but you forget to mentioned that you're compensated at the fair market value. This one example doesnt show a trend that anyone would get fed up with though.


Supreme Court splits on Ten Commandments
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s03-usju.html
Now, the lawyers get to make even more money by suing over the fact of the display of the Ten Commandments.
this seemed like a compromise to me between the liberals and conservatives. What's so wrong with saying the context is important and how are the liberals any more to blame than the conservative judges for this decision?

A Defeat for Users of Medical Marijuana
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2005/06/06/AR2005060600564_pf.html
We can use opium and strychnine for medicinal purposes, but not marijuana.

I thought it was the conservatives that were for banning medical marijuane?

Next you'll be blaiming liberals for the flag burning amendment.

You're just being partisan hack. You disagree with the liberal agenda, there's nothing here that actually supports your claims of being fed up with liberal policy. Especially, since most of the policy coming out of the government these days is conservative in nature.

His whole argument is crap considering only 2 judges were appointed by Clinton. The rest were by Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr.

 

[Moonbeam]

All these cases were decided rationally, legally, and within the law. Insane irrational people often have insane irrational and reactive responses to rational legal judicial decisions.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: her209
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the SC was there not to decide the outcome, but to make sure that procedures with accordance to the law was followed properly.

Yes that is what they are there for. As you can see from their own reversals including one that was made in 1997 they are no longer abiding by the rule of law. Of course, you have see the devestation wrought by activist judges before so this is nothing new.

You can also see that the liberal judges are no longer ruling base on the Constitution. Even their own opinions talk about ruling based on the current laws of other countries.

Maybe you can name a few countries that don't really allow the individuals to own private property. Of course, this is what President Clinton kept stating. Your money and property is only yours by the grace of the Government.

You do realize that 7 out of the 9 judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, don't you? It takes 5 to win. Even if the 2 "activist" judges were to go on the affirming side, it still takes 3 of your own conservative judges to win the case.

No he doesn't realize that because he's nothing but a propogandists. If the republicans told him the sky was red he'd be argueing the case right here on this forum.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: her209
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the SC was there not to decide the outcome, but to make sure that procedures with accordance to the law was followed properly.

Yes that is what they are there for. As you can see from their own reversals including one that was made in 1997 they are no longer abiding by the rule of law. Of course, you have see the devestation wrought by activist judges before so this is nothing new.

You can also see that the liberal judges are no longer ruling base on the Constitution. Even their own opinions talk about ruling based on the current laws of other countries.

Maybe you can name a few countries that don't really allow the individuals to own private property. Of course, this is what President Clinton kept stating. Your money and property is only yours by the grace of the Government.

You do realize that 7 out of the 9 judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, don't you? It takes 5 to win. Even if the 2 "activist" judges were to go on the affirming side, it still takes 3 of your own conservative judges to win the case.

No he doesn't realize that because he's nothing but a propogandists. If the republicans told him the sky was red he'd be argueing the case right here on this forum.

Ain't that the truth. I'd say that this goes for almost all the neocons on this forum.

 

[imported_tss4]

Well, we all have our agendas, but this particular arguement was just down right pathetic.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: tss4
Well, we all have our agendas, but this particular arguement was just down right pathetic.

But at least some folks actually use logic and facts. He attempt at logic, you're right, was downright pathetic.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: tss4

I thought it was the conservatives that were for banning medical marijuane?

Next you'll be blaiming liberals for the flag burning amendment.

No, the conservative justices gave the dissenting opinons.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Anytime I hear the phrase "activist judges", my moron alarm goes off.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: tss4

I thought it was the conservatives that were for banning medical marijuane?

Next you'll be blaiming liberals for the flag burning amendment.

No, the conservative justices gave the dissenting opinons.

Again, FOUR conservative justices gave affirming opinions. Only two were nominated by Clinton. Your point, again, is baseless.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: phantom309
Well, I'm won over. Do me a favor - can you tell me exactly how many Democrats are switching parties because of this? Real, substantiated numbers? I'd like to know how big a bandwagon I'm jumping on.

Take a look at the 50-60 years prior to President Clinton and see who controlled the House and Senate. Now, take a look since 1992.

That should help you.

Welcome aboard, if you are sincere. You have now entered the equality zone.

The zone where you don't answer a specific question, and instead throw out a broad, 12-year-old generalization?

 

[Red Dawn]

I extremely sick of extremist from both sides of the Political Spectrum. Unfortunately those assholes are the only ones we hear about.

Why is it that those with their heads the furthest up their asses make the most noise?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: tss4

I thought it was the conservatives that were for banning medical marijuane?

Next you'll be blaiming liberals for the flag burning amendment.

No, the conservative justices gave the dissenting opinons.

4 out of 7 judges appointed by REPUBLICAN presidents voted FOR this. There are only 2 judges appointed by democrats on the SC. So exactly how is this the democrats doing?

Republicans as a party are against medical marijuana and the 4 out of 7 republican appointed justices voted to ban it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I extremely sick of extremist from both sides of the Political Spectrum. Unfortunately those assholes are the only ones we hear about.

Why is it that those with their heads the furthest up their asses make the most noise?

Maybe asses function like megaphones.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I extremely sick of extremist from both sides of the Political Spectrum. Unfortunately those assholes are the only ones we hear about.

Why is it that those with their heads the furthest up their asses make the most noise?

amen

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: her209
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the SC was there not to decide the outcome, but to make sure that procedures with accordance to the law was followed properly.

Yes that is what they are there for. As you can see from their own reversals including one that was made in 1997 they are no longer abiding by the rule of law. Of course, you have see the devestation wrought by activist judges before so this is nothing new.

You can also see that the liberal judges are no longer ruling base on the Constitution. Even their own opinions talk about ruling based on the current laws of other countries.

Maybe you can name a few countries that don't really allow the individuals to own private property. Of course, this is what President Clinton kept stating. Your money and property is only yours by the grace of the Government.

You do realize that 7 out of the 9 judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, don't you? It takes 5 to win. Even if the 2 "activist" judges were to go on the affirming side, it still takes 3 of your own conservative judges to win the case.

Not every judge appointed by Republicans is a conservative.