Asking all liberals. Are you fed up yet?

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
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!

And I agree with you on this. But that decision does not show that the supreme court is under control of liberal activist judges which is what this was about.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: tss4
And republicans vote in conservative judges and liberals vote in liberal judges.

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.

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.

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:

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?

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.

And, yet, you still miss the entire point. The supreme court was ruling on how the election process whould be carried out, NOT who they wanted to be president. Until you can understand that very basic concept, then no one can help you understand the rest.

You still haven't made the case that there courts are majority liberal. In fact you've done quite the opposite. You've presented evidence that Kennedy is concervative. So, by your own admission, the courts are 6-3 conservative.

You're actually further from proving your point than when you started.

 

[zendari]

You're either clueless or arguing for the sake of arguing. By your own admission there are at least 3 liberals on the court. The court isn't majority liberal, no, but with 3 liberals and 2 democrat-appointed judges, clearly (at least if you know how to count)

Not every judge appointed by Republicans is a conservative.

I don't know why you tried to argue against this when you seem to agree with it, my guess is you wanted a shot to bash me and my political views. Well, have fun, I'm not going to respond anymore in this thread.


And Infohawk is correct: The court is widely regarded as being 5-4 conservative. I said that earlier in the thread.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari
You're either clueless or arguing for the sake of arguing. By your own admission there are at least 3 liberals on the court. The court isn't majority liberal, no, but with 3 liberals and 2 democrat-appointed judges, clearly (at least if you know how to count)

Not every judge appointed by Republicans is a conservative.

I don't know why you tried to argue against this when you seem to agree with it, my guess is you wanted a shot to bash me and my political views. Well, have fun, I'm not going to respond anymore in this thread.


And Infohawk is correct: The court is widely regarded as being 5-4 conservative. I said that earlier in the thread.

Youre being intellectually dishonest because I know you can count. The 3 liberals INCLUDES the 2 democrat appointed judges, and you are aware of that, hence the dishonesty in your reply. I continue to argue with you because you say things that are clearly wrong like that. And I suspect you're really not responding to this thread because you realise that even your own links support that there are only 3 liberals on the court (and from your own link one of the 3 can best be described as beloning to neither party).

It seems you like to accuse people that disagree with you of bashing. The only thing I've bashed you for is saying that gay people deserve to die from aids.

And if you've now changed your position to be that there are 5 consvervaties and 4 liberals, then HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE ARGUEING THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS UNDER LIBERAL CONTROL????? You make no sense half the time.

 

[dannybin1742]

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

edited for content, look at who appointed them, quite triping about liberal judges, there are no liberal judges,

seisure of property for business is NOT a liberal idea, its a neocon republican idea, -probusiness anything, screw normal americans