David Souter was nominated by the first president Bush, and he voted against Bush Jr in Bush vs Gore. That's about as partisan a case as you can get.
Anthony Kennedy wouldn't even be there if the Democratic Senate didn't block the first nominee.
They surely would have liked to nominate conservatives, but it didn't happen that way.
No, they would have liked to have nominated strong conservatives. Instead they were forced to nominate moderate conservatives. But you don't want a moderate, now do you? Moderates don't consider AIDS the wrath of God on gays.
Very few people outside the ACLU and other leftists considered GW Bush an extremist back in 2000. Though I suppose you fit their category.
'Conservative' Supreme Court? Are you joking?
Here is a statistical ranking of the judges on the supreme court, and it categorizes the court as 4 liberals, 3 strong conservatives, and 2 moderate conservatives, which I think is accurate.
'Conservative' Supreme Court? Are you joking?
Here is a statistical ranking of the judges on the supreme court, and it categorizes the court as 4 liberals, 3 strong conservatives, and 2 moderate conservatives, which I think is accurate.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I'm not a Liberal or a Leftist and no I don't believe the Supreme Court is overly conservative.
As for believing the the Dub was an Extremist, well I did believe that he was in the back pocket of the Fundies (which it turns out he is) but I had no idea that he would take America to war with Iraq at the beckoning of the PNAC and other extremist groups. If I had I would have doubted him regarding his and his lackeys claims about vast quanties of WMDs in Iraq. When I did support the action in Iraq I did so fully believing that he wouldn't be deceitful enough (at worse) or incompetent enough (at best) to totally get it wrong.
What makes me laugh is they talk about "activist judges" then get upset when the "activist judges" don't over-ride legilative authority. The eminent domain case was a perfect example of this. The court refused to intervene in what the legislature had passed laws allowing. So the "activist" judges weren't activist on the issue they want them to be "activist" on. The medical marjuana falls into this same category by refusing to trump legislative authority. This isn't the supreme court writting laws or being "activist" this is them saying congress has the right to do what they did and if you want to change it you have to take it up with congress.
So keep it straight, if you don't want "activist" judges don't get upset when they defer to congressional authority.
So keep it straight, if you don't want "activist" judges don't get upset when they defer to congressional authority.
I know this is hard for you to understand but a moderate by definition doesn't always agree with his/her party. You must be equally perplexed at how republicans and deomcrats occasionally cross party lines when voting on legislation.
The perspective must be awfully cloudy from the far right over there.
Of course you think , its accurate. Your from the radical right and you just quoted a web sight that bills itself as "Conservative News and Information". I bet that web sight is where you read that AIDS is the wrath of God on gays.
And no, when Bush came into office in 2000, I was under the impression he was a moderate. You see, I toe a pretty moderate line which I can back up from my own posts here. You quite obviously, demonstrate your position in the political spectrum.
So these 2 justices, which are "moderate conservatives", chose a liberal (Gore), over a "moderate conservative" (Bush)? Interesting.
When push came to shove and they had to chose a side, doesn't seem like they chose the conservative one. I suppose Gore's liberal policies more accurately reflect where their beliefs lie.
Your deluded idea that you "toe a moderate line" is laughable.
Its like you dont even think. It wasn't a choice of Gore or Bush, it was a choice of how should the election process function. They voted according to the ideals that they held to be truth, DESPITE, the out come of who it would benefit. That's true conviction. Again, otherwise, how would senators and represenatatives ever cross party lines when voting???? You truly see the world in partisan terms. Its sad and it goes a long way towards explaining your comments on this and other threads.
Your position is ridiculous.
You can say that but I challenge you to support it. I can quote your far right opinions all day, but if you try to do the same I can pull out many threads where I supported the conservative position. I don't play the party line like some lemming.
But we both know you wont even try because you know you cant.
So why does the left say that Bush's Dad's "conservative" friends on the court voted Bush in? Weren't they all "voted according to the ideals that they held to be truth, DESPITE, the out come of who it would benefit"?
And since people don't blindly follow party lines, why does every Republican judge have to be a conservative?
I never claimed to be a moderate, don't know where you got that idea from.
And since people don't blindly follow party lines, why does every Republican judge have to be a conservative?
I never claimed to be a moderate, don't know where you got that idea from.
Because the far liberal left can be just as partisan. They commit the same stupidity the far right does. Everything is about spin. But most people, (and the majority of people are moderates) convervative or liberal moderates, were just fine with the outcome and dont believe that Bush's Dad fixed it for him. You have to remember that the squekiest wheel is usually the loud extremist so that's who your going to here more from. I didn't want bush to win the election but I don't believe it to be invalid in any way. That's democracy.
Nope, you never claimed to be a moderate, but it was necessary to expose your extremist views to put them in context. I wouldn't want a liberal here confusing you with a main stream republican. That wouldn't help the debate.
And republicans vote in conservative judges and liberals vote in liberal judges. the degree of liberalness or conservativess varies though. Very few people always vote along party lines. Your deluding yourself if you think a party wouldnt vote in a judge that at least was mildy affiliated with the parties principles. But that does in no way mean the judge will always vote with the party. Same is true for elected politicians. I think you understand this principle. Its not hard, you're just being stubborn. Again, I dont think you understand. The judges in 2000 weren't voting on who do they WANT to be president... they were voting on HOW should the election process be carried out.
Seems to me like you also see the world in partisan terms.
Sadly these justices aren't always honest about who they are beforehand, thanks to lifetime appointments.
In Battle to Pick Next Justice, Right Says, Avoid a Kennedy
Oh, and BTW that rating system I posted earlier was from Ohio State University, which ranks 4 judges over the 50 midpoint. I wonder how far to the left your midpoint is, especially if you think someone like Souter even remotely resembles today's Republican party.
lol, you really crack me up. You really are funny. Saying that Republicans and liberals vote for their respective party isnt partisan. Always agreeing with a party irregardless of their position... that's partisan. You do know how to use a dictionary? right?
As for Souter. No he doesnt represent todays Republican Party. Today's republican party is VASTLY different from the Republican party of 10 years ago. So what's your point? And I wasnt the one that identified Souter as a republican, the republicans choose him. So I dont see what that has to do with my political views? do you? As for Kennedy, they probably did get someone more moderate then they intended. But they doesnt mean hes a more conservative than he is liberal.
And YOUR OWN chart you are refering to from Ohio state supports that Kennedy is a conservative! And even Souter is just barely left leaning according to it. You'll have to escuse me when I would safely say that its in the margin of error and he could pretty easily be sumed up as a true moderate that doesnt really appear to lean either way. So by your own factual evidence, There are 2 "liberals", 6 "conservatives", and 1 that is pretty much a tie. So explain to me agian how this helps your case? Even if I gave you the tie, it would be 6 to 3. Did you even read you own source?
My point? Well that goes back to the beginning, where I said this statement was misleading:
"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."
I'm glad you agree that this person doesn't represent today's Republican Party and that he shouldn't be associated with them. :thumbsup:
And by nomination it should be 7-2. Hence,
"Not every judge appointed by Republicans is a conservative."
In fact, Mr Stevens was appointed by a Republican and is way out there in the 60s.
Now, now....you'll have to stop confusing the poor boy with facts. It takes a lot of work to figure out that if you have more than the other person, you have the majority.
You clearly do not understand what liberalism is. Rather, you seem to coin rulings that you do not agree with as liberal. Please go educate yourself within the field of political science before coming to such rash and uncalled for conclusions.
This is basically a rehas of what we've already talked about. First of all, conservative judges are also activist judges. The court is widely regaded as being 5-4 conservative (see Bush v. Gore clear partisan breakdown). So your whole premise is absurd. I think courts have too much power, but it has nothing to do with your liberal rant.
I apologize in advance for spelling and grammar. My vision is messed up right now and the headache is suggesting, or demanding, that I stop looking at the monitor. Thanks for your tolerance.
I'm not sure how to respond as your comment that doesn't address anything. It neither discusses or asks a question. It merely attacks. It does, however, indicate that you don't understand what was being explained. So, allow me to be even more clear to help you understand better.
For 50+ years the democrats controlled both the house and the senate. During this time they gained control of the mainstream media, the educational system, and in many cases the judicial system.
Beginning with LBJ it seems that each time a democrat was elected President, giving power in the House, Senate, Presidency, and Courts things went horribly wrong.
LBJ gave escalated the Viet Nam war. Twice.
Carter gave us double digit inflation.
The Clinton's (remember, they first ran as co-Presidents) tried to have the government take over healthcare and convert the Government to a Fascist form of Government.
This is not to say that all the republican presidents were better. It does show how things can go horribly wrong when all three offices are aligned. As they are now. It is why the democrats MUST retake control of their party and give balance. As long as the leaders are trying to destroy America it is, hopefully, impossible for the democrats to give balance.
Once the democrats tried to overtly change America to a more Fascist form ("The New Way") the people began move away from the democrat party.
In my Family my daughter (step daughter for you nit picks) who was quite liberal moved to California and married a radical liberal. Like many liberals who post here he wants all conservatives to die and obviously hates all republicans.
My daughter has become a republican, albeit a Californian Republican. My son-in-laws Family who claim to have never voted for a Republican voted against Clinton in 1996. In 2000 my son-in-law was convinced by his parents to vote against Al Gore also, on his own, decided to vote against John Kerry, as did his parents.
While our in laws don't contact me my daughter says it is because of how radical the democrats have become.
Thus, i have pointed out specifica personal cases and shown the general trend in the Country.
Other trends to look at. Only once or twice before has the incumbant President not lost seats in the House and Senate.
Since 1992 the country has been moving to the republican party. This does not mean they are becoming more conservative but does seem to indicate the democrat party is becoming much more radical.
Another indication of how radical is how the liberal courts, including the receent decisions by the Supreme Court have become. To "pass" laws Clinton used the "executive order" and the courts have reversed themselves and ignored the Constitution. Instead they have relied more on the much more liberal international laws.
Please don't consider liberal ideas (abortion, if it feels good do it, etc.) with liberal governments (Communism, Fascism, Marxism, etc.). The two uses of the word liberal are not equatable.
I'm not sure how to respond as your comment that doesn't address anything. It neither discusses or asks a question. It merely attacks. It does, however, indicate that you don't understand what was being explained. So, allow me to be even more clear to help you understand better.
For 50+ years the democrats controlled both the house and the senate. During this time they gained control of the mainstream media, the educational system, and in many cases the judicial system.
Beginning with LBJ it seems that each time a democrat was elected President, giving power in the House, Senate, Presidency, and Courts things went horribly wrong.
LBJ gave escalated the Viet Nam war. Twice.
Carter gave us double digit inflation.
The Clinton's (remember, they first ran as co-Presidents) tried to have the government take over healthcare and convert the Government to a Fascist form of Government.
This is not to say that all the republican presidents were better. It does show how things can go horribly wrong when all three offices are aligned. As they are now. It is why the democrats MUST retake control of their party and give balance. As long as the leaders are trying to destroy America it is, hopefully, impossible for the democrats to give balance.
Once the democrats tried to overtly change America to a more Fascist form ("The New Way") the people began move away from the democrat party.
In my Family my daughter (step daughter for you nit picks) who was quite liberal moved to California and married a radical liberal. Like many liberals who post here he wants all conservatives to die and obviously hates all republicans.
My daughter has become a republican, albeit a Californian Republican. My son-in-laws Family who claim to have never voted for a Republican voted against Clinton in 1996. In 2000 my son-in-law was convinced by his parents to vote against Al Gore also, on his own, decided to vote against John Kerry, as did his parents.
While our in laws don't contact me my daughter says it is because of how radical the democrats have become.
Thus, i have pointed out specifica personal cases and shown the general trend in the Country.
Other trends to look at. Only once or twice before has the incumbant President not lost seats in the House and Senate.
Since 1992 the country has been moving to the republican party. This does not mean they are becoming more conservative but does seem to indicate the democrat party is becoming much more radical.
Another indication of how radical is how the liberal courts, including the receent decisions by the Supreme Court have become. To "pass" laws Clinton used the "executive order" and the courts have reversed themselves and ignored the Constitution. Instead they have relied more on the much more liberal international laws.
Please don't consider liberal ideas (abortion, if it feels good do it, etc.) with liberal governments (Communism, Fascism, Marxism, etc.). The two uses of the word liberal are not equatable.
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.
that's still not enough, fair market value doesn't always make up for geographic location. let's say, for example, you own a burger joint right next to a ball park. and the govt wants your land to bring in a hotel to build closer to the park. so they pay you the "fair market value" and you're forced to move your business 2 miles away. you've lost your geographic advantage, and 6 months later are forced to close shop. that's reality, not melodrama.
even the liberals need to wake up to this decision. it will end up hurtning poor people the most!
in an ironic twist, take a look at the drudgereport today, it says a bh company is petitioning the govt. to seize judge suiter's home, in order to build a hotel! that's justice!
that's still not enough, fair market value doesn't always make up for geographic location. let's say, for example, you own a burger joint right next to a ball park. and the govt wants your land to bring in a hotel to build closer to the park. so they pay you the "fair market value" and you're forced to move your business 2 miles away. you've lost your geographic advantage, and 6 months later are forced to close shop. that's reality, not melodrama.
even the liberals need to wake up to this decision. it will end up hurtning poor people the most!
in an ironic twist, take a look at the drudgereport today, it says a bh company is petitioning the govt. to seize judge suiter's home, in order to build a hotel! that's justice!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter